Torres v. State
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 17693
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant was convicted of first‑degree sexual battery.
- During sentencing, appellant’s father spoke claiming Catholic faith and truthfulness; he asserted his son’s innocence.
- Appellant, addressing the court, claimed innocence and suggested the victim was a troubled woman who set him up.
- The trial court criticized appellant for allegedly violating Catholic morals, stating moral disapproval of his conduct and linking it to religion.
- At end of sentencing, the judge reiterated condemnation of appellant’s relationship with the victim and converted to a thirty‑year sentence, the statutory maximum.
- The appellate court held the sentence could be tainted by impermissible reliance on religion and vacated/remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing relied on impermissible factors | Santisteban: religion affected sentence | Nawaz/Singleton: judgment should not rely on religious grounds | Sentence vacated and remanded |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Ineffective counsel challenge should be raised | Procedural path via postconviction relief | Affirmed; remand proper via postconviction relief |
| First issue | Issue preserved and reviewable | Likely not to reverse on the merits | Affirmed without comment |
| Fourth issue (sentencing based on religious considerations) | Religious considerations influenced sentence | No impermissible basis shown | Reversed and remanded for new sentencing before a different judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Nawaz v. State, 28 So.3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (reliance on impermissible factors violates due process)
- Santisteban v. State, 72 So.3d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (religious grounds basis for sentence requires reversal)
- Singleton v. State, 783 So.2d 970 (Fla. 2001) (biblical references in sentencing not reversible where not basis for sentence)
- Jackson v. State, 39 So.3d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (fundamental error where statement conditions sentence on innocence)
- Bakker, 925 F.2d 728 (4th Cir. 1991) (perils of religious propriety influencing sentencing)