Richard Leroy Hayes v. State of Florida
150 So. 3d 249
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Hayes appeals his habitual felony offender sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of cocaine while armed.
- Hayes stipulated to HFO status, making the statutory maximum thirty years.
- Court imposed twelve-year terms on each count, to run concurrently, with a three-year mandatory minimum.
- Court remarked that Hayes showed no remorse or acceptance of responsibility, while defense argued punishment for innocence would be improper.
- No contemporaneous objections; record shows sentences within statutory limits and based on valid HFO grounds; sentence affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing remarks on innocence violated due process | Hayes: remarks punish innocence. | State: remarks not punitive or unconstitutional. | Not fundamental error; sentence upheld. |
| Whether HFO-based sentence within statutory maximum is constitutionally valid | Hayes: sentence based on HFO status; valid. | State: within statutory max and guidelines; proper. | Affirmed as constitutional. |
| Preservation: effect of lack of objection on review of sentencing remarks | Hayes: fundamental error exception allows review despite no objection. | State: rule 3.800(b) or contemporaneous objection required for non-fundamental errors. | Fundamental error analysis applicable; not barred. |
| Whether sentencing complied with statutory framework and discretion | Hayes: accorded proper status and mandatory minimum; no departure. | State: sentence within limits; no departure. | Constitutional and within statutory framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aliyev v. State, 835 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (no punishment for maintaining innocence shown by record)
- Nusspickel v. State, 966 So.2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (fair sentencing process with relevant factors considered)
- Torres v. State, 124 So.3d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (due process concerns from courtroom remarks)
- Dumas v. State, 134 So.3d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversals for remarks on lack of remorse)
- Jackson v. State, 39 So.3d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (remarks on lack of remorse can be reversible)