State v. Bynes
121 So. 3d 619
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Respondent (Bynes) was convicted of four counts: aggravated assault on an officer with a vehicle (Count 1), resisting arrest with violence (Count 2), fleeing/attempting to elude (Count 3), and grand theft of a motor vehicle (Count 7).
- Trial court sentenced Bynes on all four counts as a Violent Career Criminal (VCC); convictions and VCC sentences were affirmed on direct appeal (Bynes I).
- Bynes filed a Rule 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence; the trial court summarily denied it and denied rehearing.
- This court (Bynes II) reversed the summary denial only as to Counts 3 and 7, concluding the VCC sentences on those counts were illegal; the opinion did not declare Counts 1 and 2 illegal.
- On remand, the trial court proposed resentencing on all four counts; the State petitioned for a writ of prohibition to stop resentencing on Counts 1 and 2.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bynes's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court on remand may resentence counts not found illegal (Counts 1 & 2) | The court should be prohibited from resentencing Counts 1 & 2 because they were neither found illegal nor contested; resentencing them would exceed the trial court’s authority and contravene the appellate mandate | Trial counsel urged reconsideration of all four VCC sentences and public-protection necessity; sought resentencing on Counts 1 & 2 as well | Petition granted: trial court may resentence only the illegal sentences (Counts 3 and 7); it lacks authority on remand to modify legal, uncontested sentences (Counts 1 and 2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bynes v. State, 854 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (direct-appeal decision affirming convictions and VCC sentencing)
- In-PhyNet Contracting Servs., Inc. v. Soria, 82 So.3d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (prohibition prevents trial court action contrary to an appellate mandate)
- Pitts v. State, 935 So.2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (motion to correct illegal sentence does not authorize modifying legal sentences on other counts)
- Wilhelm v. State, 543 So.2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (correcting an illegal sentence on one count does not permit altering valid sentences on other counts)
- Reynolds v. State, 116 So.3d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (trial court lacked authority on remand to review valid, uncontested sentences in a Rule 3.800 proceeding)