William J. Plott v. State of Florida
148 So. 3d 90
| Fla. | 2014Background
- William Plott was convicted in 1997 of four counts of armed sexual battery and later resentenced in 2005 pursuant to Heggs; the trial court imposed four life upward-departure sentences without a jury.
- At the 2005 resentencing the court made specific oral findings (citing trial testimony) to support upward departures; defense counsel did not demand a jury at that time.
- In 2010 Plott filed a pro se Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion, arguing Apprendi/Blakely error because facts increasing the sentence were not found by a jury.
- The trial court denied relief, and the Second District affirmed, holding Apprendi claims are not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) if they could have been preserved on direct appeal.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether Apprendi/Blakely errors that produce upward-departure sentences are cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion and to resolve conflict with the First District in Hughes.
- The Court held Apprendi/Blakely claims challenging unconstitutionally enhanced upward departures are cognizable under rule 3.800(a), remanding for harmless-error analysis and possible resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a rule 3.800(a) motion can be used to attack an upward-departure sentence under Apprendi/Blakely | Plott: Apprendi/Blakely required jury findings for facts that increased sentence beyond the verdict; such a constitutional defect renders the sentence illegal and reviewable under rule 3.800(a) | State/Second District: Apprendi error is procedural and waivable; because it could have been preserved on direct appeal, rule 3.800(a) is not available | Held: Yes. Apprendi/Blakely errors that unconstitutionally enhance upward departures render sentences illegal on their face and are cognizable under rule 3.800(a) |
| Whether Apprendi/Blakely apply to resentencings held after those decisions | Plott: Apprendi/Blakely apply to resentencings that occurred after those cases issued | State: Not disputed here; Government had opportunity to object at resentencing | Held: Apprendi and Blakely apply to all resentencings conducted after those decisions issued |
| Remedy and standard of review when Apprendi/Blakely error is found in resentencing | Plott: Relief via rule 3.800(a) leading to vacatur and resentencing unless error is harmless | State: Harmless-error framework should apply | Held: Apply Galindez harmless-error analysis; if error is not harmless, remand for resentencing |
| Whether Hughes conflicts with Plott regarding availability of 3.800(a) relief | Plott: Hughes properly held rule 3.800(a) is an appropriate vehicle | Dissent/State: Hughes addressed retroactivity and its 3.800(a) language is dicta; facts differ so no express conflict | Held: Court approved Hughes and quashed the Second District in Plott, treating Hughes as controlling on the procedural vehicle issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes is what judge may impose based solely on jury verdict or defendant admissions)
- Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla. 2007) (Apprendi/Blakely claims are subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Hughes v. State, 826 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (rule 3.800(a) is an appropriate vehicle for raising Apprendi claims)
- Plott v. State, 86 So.3d 516 (Fla. 2012) (Florida Supreme Court — holding Apprendi/Blakely errors cognizable on rule 3.800(a) and remanding for harmless-error analysis)
- Fleming v. State, 61 So.3d 399 (Fla. 2011) (Apprendi/Blakely apply to resentencings held after those decisions)