Plasencia v. State
170 So. 3d 865
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plasencia convicted by jury of second-degree murder (1996 offense; life potential) under 1994 guidelines; judge imposed a 30-year upward departure sentence based on heinous, atrocious, or cruel murder and victim trauma.
- Appeal and postconviction history include direct appeal and multiple postconviction motions challenging the departure and Apprendi/Blakely issues; Blakely arose after judgment, affecting the analysis of the statutory maximum.
- Postconviction court treated a 2005 motion as 3.800(a) illegal-sentence motion and denied relief; subsequent motions were deemed successive or frivolous.
- Plaintiff argued his sentence exceeded the properly defined maximum under Apprendi and Blakely, because facts supporting the departure were not jury-found or admitted.
- The current motion (January 27, 2014) sought resentencing within guidelines; the postconviction court found the motion procedural-barred and abusive, and barred further pro se filings; the appellate court reversed and remanded for merits review including harmless-error analysis.
- The court noted that, because Blakely applies to judge-imposed facts not found by a jury, the departure sentence could be unconstitutional and warranted reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apprendi/Blakely apply to the departure sentence | Plasencia argues departure facts were not jury-found | State contends the statutory maximum was not exceeded | Yes; applies, and departure may be unlawful |
| Collateral estoppel as bar to successive 3.800 claims | Manifests injustice excuses bar | Estoppel bars relitigation | Not barred; manifest injustice negates collateral estoppel |
| Harmless-error analysis for Apprendi/Blakely error | Error could be harmless | Record insufficient for harmless analysis | Remand for harmless-error analysis on merits |
| Pro se filing prohibition | Should not preclude further pro se pleadings | Court-wide sanction for abuse of process | Reversed; remand to reconsider merits; remove filing prohibition |
| Remand posture | Remand to determine merits including potential resentence | Remand for merits review as to Apprendi/Blakely issue | Remand for merits review and possible resentence within guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (establishes statutory maximum and jury-found facts rule)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (limits judge-found facts for sentencing without jury)
- Boardman v. State, 69 So. 3d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ( Blakely-like considerations in Florida context)
- Maglio v. State, 918 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (Apprendi/Blakely applied to departures)
- Donohue v. State, 925 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Apprendi/Blakely considerations for departures)
- Behl v. State, 898 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (pipeline/retroactivity considerations in Blakely context)