Williams v. State
164 So. 3d 739
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jonathan Williams was convicted of sexual battery with a deadly weapon and robbery with a weapon; the trial court sentenced him to life on the sexual battery count and 30 years consecutive on the robbery count.
- Williams' lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code was about 174.9 months; the statutory maximum was life.
- At sentencing the trial judge expressly relied on Williams' assertion of innocence and lack of remorse in denying the minimum sentence and imposing a harsher term.
- The judge characterized Williams’ defense as implausible and stated that Williams showed "absolutely no remorse," which the court cited as a principal reason for the sentence.
- Williams appealed, arguing (among other things) that the sentencing court impermissibly considered his assertions of innocence and lack of remorse, requiring resentencing or a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing court may consider defendant's assertions of innocence and lack of remorse | Williams: reliance on assertions of innocence and lack of remorse is an improper sentencing factor that violates due process and constitutes fundamental error | State: (implicitly) sentence within statutory range justified by overwhelming evidence and implausible defense; no basis for new sentence or new trial | Court: Reversed sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge because the court expressly relied on improper factors (assertions of innocence, lack of remorse) |
| Whether improper sentencing factors require resentencing before a different judge | Williams: yes; fundamental error requires resentencing before a new judge | State: did not concede; argued other reasons justified sentence | Court: Directed resentencing before a different judge consistent with controlling precedent |
| Whether trial errors at guilt phase (failure to give special circumstantial evidence instruction; alleged burden-shifting by State) require new trial | Williams: these errors warrant a new trial | State: no merit to these contentions | Court: Found neither claim meritorious and declined to order a new trial |
| Whether trial judge could consider truthfulness of defendant's testimony at sentencing | Williams: cannot be used as a sentencing factor | State: not argued successfully | Court: Reiterated that truthfulness of guilt-phase testimony cannot be used and such reliance is fundamental error requiring resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gage v. State, 147 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (reliance on lack of remorse and assertions of innocence in sentencing is fundamental error)
- Johnson v. State, 120 So. 3d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (failure to object to sentencing court’s consideration of assertions of innocence and truthfulness may be ineffective assistance; remand for new sentencing)
- Diaz v. State, 106 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (trial court may not consider truthfulness of guilt-phase testimony at sentencing)
- Smith v. State, 62 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (express consideration of lack of remorse and assertions of innocence denies due process; requires resentencing before different judge)
- Brown v. State, 27 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversed sentences where judge relied on lack of remorse)
- Hannum v. State, 13 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (fundamental error where court considered assertions of innocence and truthfulness at sentencing)
- Bracero v. State, 10 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (using protestation of innocence against defendant violates due process)
- R.M.T. v. State, 157 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reaffirming that assertions of innocence and truthfulness are improper sentencing considerations)