Sidney Norvil, Jr. v. State of Florida
191 So. 3d 406
Fla.2016Background
- Defendant Sidney Norvil Jr. pleaded to armed burglary of a dwelling and was sentenced after a presentencing investigation was ordered.
- While out on bond for the primary offense, Norvil was arrested on a subsequent burglary-of-a-vehicle charge (which he denied and had not been tried on).
- At sentencing the prosecutor alerted the court to the pending vehicle-burglary charge and fingerprint evidence; defense counsel objected to consideration of that pending charge.
- The trial court discussed the subsequent arrest as reflecting Norvil’s character and declined youthful offender treatment, imposing a 12-year term.
- The Fourth District affirmed but, en banc, held the court permissibly considered the pending post-offense charge.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review and held that a trial court may not consider a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense; it quashed the Fourth District and approved Yisrael, Mirutil, and Gray.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentencing court may consider a subsequent arrest (without conviction) that occurred after the primary offense when imposing sentence for the primary offense | State: the subsequent charge was relevant, supported by record evidence, not acquitted, defendant had opportunity to respond, and the court did not unduly emphasize it | Norvil: considering a subsequent, unadjudicated arrest violates due process and the CPC limits sentencing factors to prior arrests/convictions (not subsequent arrests) | The Court held no: a trial court may not consider a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense (bright-line rule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Yisrael v. State, 65 So.3d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (court prohibited consideration of subsequent unadjudicated arrests at sentencing)
- Mirutil v. State, 30 So.3d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (same rule adopted by Third DCA)
- Gray v. State, 964 So.2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (Second DCA holding that subsequent arrests without conviction are not permissible sentencing factors)
- Watts v. United States, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (U.S. Supreme Court: sentencing courts may consider acquitted conduct if proven by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (recognizing broad judicial discretion within statutory sentencing ranges)
- Hall v. State, 823 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2002) (discussing sentencing principles under Florida law)