State v. Akins
69 So. 3d 261
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Akins was adjudicated guilty of drug offenses and sentenced as an habitual felony offender (HFO) to 30 years under a true split sentence.
- He began serving the sentence in 1991; two probation violations occurred in 2003 and 2004 for cocaine use.
- The 2003 VOP hearing acknowledged Akins’ HFO status; the court reserved two years on probation but later imposed five years in prison.
- In 2005, the trial court amended Akins’ judgment to add an HFO designation after originally omitting it.
- Akins challenged the amendment as illegal and double jeopardy; the Second District initially affirmed denial of relief.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review to decide whether reestablishing an HFO designation at a VOP revocation violates double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-sentencing HFO designation violates double jeopardy | Akins contends retroactive HFO designation after serving time is a greater punishment. | State argues designation may be clarified or corrected; no new punishment beyond original sentence. | Yes; post-sentencing HFO designation constitutes an illegal sentence and violates double jeopardy. |
| Whether amendment to reflect HFO after impairment of VOP is invalid | Amendment to impose or reflect HFO after service increases punishment. | Amendment corrects scrivener’s error and reflects prior determination. | Yes; amendment to reflect HFO after service is an illegal sentence and barred. |
| Whether the oral pronouncement must echo HFO status at revocation | Failure to pronounce HFO orally at revocation undermines the sentence. | Oral pronouncement should align with record; written order can reflect status. | Yes; required to align with oral pronouncement, otherwise illegal sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashley v. State, 850 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 2003) (double jeopardy concerns in post-sentencing modification)
- Evans v. State, 675 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (re-sentencing after probation violation; HFO designation)
- Ashley II, 850 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 2003) (affirms Evans approach and rejects Ashley I)
- White v. State, 892 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (probation revocation requires HFO designation to be declared)
- Mann v. State, 851 So.2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (distinguishes cases where no alteration of sentence occurred)
- Barron v. State, 827 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (consistency with Evans on HFO designation after revocation)
- Ashley I, 772 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (initial misalignment between oral pronouncement and written sentence)
- Vasquez v. State, 663 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (clerical vs judicial error in sentencing)
- Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1996) (oral pronouncement controls when inconsistent with written sentence)