The Law Office of Jeffrey H. Garland, P.A., recently secured an important victory in post-conviction litigation when the court issued an Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Correct Sentencing Error. This case illustrates not only the importance of thorough post-conviction advocacy, but also the evolving landscape of sentencing law in Florida. As a respected Saint Lucie criminal defense lawyer and Saint Lucie post-conviction relief attorney, Jeffrey H. Garland continues to fight tirelessly for clients facing complex legal challenges, even decades after their initial convictions.
Background of the Case
The case has its origins in 1989, when the Defendant was convicted of multiple serious offenses, including one count of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of sexual battery with physical force, robbery, and grand theft. The trial court imposed the following sentence:
- 30 years for attempted murder
- 15 years for robbery
- 5 years for grand theft
- Two concurrent life sentences for sexual battery
At the time, the sentencing guidelines scoresheet incorrectly reflected 40 additional points, artificially inflating the maximum permissible sentence to life in prison. As a result, the Defendant received sentences that exceeded the lawful statutory maximum.
The Defendant’s original appeals were unsuccessful, and his convictions and sentences were affirmed. For nearly 35 years, the case appeared to be final. However, in 2023, the Defendant—through diligent legal representation—challenged the legality of the scoresheet calculation.
The Fourth District Court’s Intervention
The trial court initially denied the motion to correct the sentence. On appeal, however, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed. The appellate court recognized that the inclusion of 40 improper points in the scoresheet rendered the sentence illegal. Without the erroneous points, the maximum allowable sentence would have been 40 years, not life.
The Fourth District Court remanded the case for resentencing, opening the door for a new chapter in post-conviction litigation.
Resentencing and Legal Arguments
At resentencing, both the State and the defense presented memoranda regarding the appropriate sentence. Notably, the State acknowledged that the resentencing was a de novo proceeding, meaning the court was required to reexamine sentencing from the ground up rather than merely correct a clerical error.
Despite this acknowledgment, the trial court ultimately reimposed a life sentence, citing aggravating factors such as the heinous nature of the crimes, ongoing psychological trauma to the victim, and the Defendant’s intent to conceal his identity through attempted murder. These aggravating circumstances were not found by the jury, nor were they admitted by the Defendant.
Constitutional Principles: Apprendi and Blakely
The defense, led by The Law Office of Jeffrey H. Garland, P.A., challenged the upward departure. Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Blakely v. Washington (2004), the motion argued that any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury or admitted by the defendant. The trial court’s reliance on judicial fact-finding violated these constitutional safeguards.
While the State countered that Apprendi should not apply because the original conviction predated the Supreme Court’s ruling, the defense successfully pointed to State v. Fleming (Fla. 2011). In that decision, the Florida Supreme Court held that Apprendi and Blakely do apply to resentencings conducted after those rulings, even when the conviction was final beforehand.
The Court’s Ruling
After reviewing the record and relevant case law, the court agreed with the defense. The trial court acknowledged that its reasons for imposing the life sentence were not contained in the jury’s verdict and were not admitted by the Defendant. Applying Apprendi, Blakely, and Fleming, the court concluded that the upward departure was unlawful.
The order granted the Defendant’s motion and vacated the life sentence. Importantly, the ruling also scheduled a new de novo resentencing hearing, allowing both parties to present evidence and argument consistent with constitutional requirements.
Significance of the Case
This victory underscores the critical role of post-conviction relief in safeguarding constitutional rights. Even decades after conviction, defendants may obtain relief when courts impose sentences inconsistent with governing law. By holding the justice system accountable, Jeffrey H. Garland continues to demonstrate the importance of persistence, legal precision, and zealous advocacy.
This case highlights three important principles:
- Accuracy in Sentencing – Even seemingly minor errors in scoresheets can dramatically alter sentencing outcomes.
- Constitutional Protections – Apprendi and Blakely remain vital safeguards against judicial overreach.
- The Power of Post-Conviction Relief – With skilled legal representation, unlawful sentences can be challenged and corrected.
Why Choose The Law Office of Jeffrey H. Garland, P.A.?
Attorney Jeffrey H. Garland has decades of experience representing clients in post-conviction and appellate matters. His track record demonstrates not only knowledge of complex procedural rules but also the tenacity required to challenge entrenched legal errors. For those seeking a Saint Lucie criminal defense lawyer or a Saint Lucie post-conviction relief attorney, his firm stands as a trusted advocate committed to protecting the rights of the accused.
Contact a Saint Lucie Criminal Defense Lawyer
If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges or seeking post-conviction relief in Saint Lucie or the surrounding areas, do not wait to seek help. Contact The Law Office of Jeffrey H. Garland, P.A. at (772) 489-2200.
This case reaffirms that even long-standing sentences are not beyond review when constitutional rights are at stake. With persistence and skilled legal advocacy, justice can be corrected—even decades later. If you need the guidance of an experienced Saint Lucie criminal defense lawyer or a Saint Lucie post-conviction relief attorney, Jeffrey H. Garland and his team are ready to help.