Court Opinion

ID: 9384903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 15:03:25.521944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.447008
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed April 5, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1954
                      Lower Tribunal No. F15-23351
                          ________________

                           Andres Duquesne,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge.

     Andres Duquesne, in proper person.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before HENDON, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.

     Andres Duquesne appeals from the summary denial of a motion to
correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

On the basis of the summary record before us, we reverse and remand for

further proceedings.

     In 2016, pursuant to a guilty plea, Duquesne was adjudicated guilty for

two third-degree felonies – burglary of an unoccupied conveyance and grand

theft. At that time, he was sentenced to jail for 180 days, followed by two

years of probation.    These initial sentences were concurrent, and the

sentencing order did not include any form of habitual offender designation,

reclassification, or other enhancement.

     After Duquesne was found to have violated probation in 2017, he was

resentenced to a term of ten years with all credit for time served for counts

one and two. Again, the written sentencing order did not include any habitual

offender designation of the defendant, nor did it include any other form of

enhancement or reclassification. The sentencing order further provided that

the two ten-year sentences were concurrent. 1

      In May 2022, Duquesne moved to correct his illegal sentence arguing

that the trial court, when resentencing him in 2017, erred by imposing a

1
  On appeal, we found violations of Duquesne’s probation were substantial
(failing to report, absconding from probation, and committing a theft while on
probation), but remanded for the trial court to modify the grounds found in
the revocation order. See Duquesne v. State, 242 So. 3d 1183, 1187 (Fla.
3d DCA 2018).

                                      2
habitual felony offender (HFO) sentence, when no such sentence had been

imposed as a part of the original sentencing, and where he did not receive

notice of intent to impose a habitual offender sentence. The State responded

and asserted that Duquesne’s claim had no merit because the sentencing

documents reflected that he had not been designated as a habitual offender

in this case. On the basis of that response, the lower court denied the

motion, stating that after a review of the transcripts and court records, “[t]he

Defendant was not sentenced as a habitual felony offender upon revocation

of his probation.”

      Duquesne moved for rehearing and clarified his argument. Relevantly,

he asserted:

      If the sentences are non-HFO, as this Court holds, then the two
      sentences running concurrent would equal 5 years in length and
      not ten years as . . . orally pronounced [referencing a transcript
      excerpt of the probation violation hearing]. The two 5-year non-
      HFO sentences would have to run consecutively to equate to the
      10 years Duquesne is now serving. . . . The only scenario in
      which the two 10-year sentences running concurrent can exist is
      if the two third-degree felony offenses are HFO sentences.

The lower court denied the motion for rehearing, finding that: 1) the oral

pronouncement        controls   over   the   written   sentence;   2)   the   oral

pronouncement did not assert that the sentences were to run concurrently;

and 3) it was therefore evident that the court intended the sentences to run

consecutively.

                                        3
     On appeal, Duquesne argues that the two offenses for which he was

convicted and sentenced after the revocation of probation were third-degree

felonies, so the maximum sentence that could be imposed for each of those

offenses was five years under section 775.082(3)(e), Florida Statutes

(2015), absent some form of statutory enhancement or reclassification. In

response, the State acknowledges that the two sentences of ten years each

exceed the statutory maximum, and would thus be illegal, unless supported

by some form of statutory enhancement or reclassification, none of which

appear in the attachments to any of the motions, responses, or order.2

Additionally, the written sentence further imposed a general sentence of ten

years, without dividing the sentence between the two offenses. See Brazley

v. State, 871 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.701(d)(12).

     Accordingly, on remand, if the trial court does not have any

documentation reflecting a statutory enhancement that would permit

sentences in excess of the statutory maximum of five years for each offense,

2
 The State notes that it is also legal for a sentence to exceed the statutory
maximum sentence under section 775.082 when the total points in the
Criminal Punishment Code sentencing scoresheet result in the lowest
permissible sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum. § 921.0024(2),
Fla. Stat. (2015). However, the lowest permissible sentence cannot be
ascertained on the summary record in this appeal, as the scoresheet is not
appended to any of the pleadings or orders.

                                     4
then the court should resentence Duquesne. Duquesne contends that the

rule of lenity mandates that on remand, he should be resentenced to no more

than two concurrent, five-year terms, which would entitle him to immediate

release. We disagree. A trial court may exercise its discretion to restructure

a defendant’s challenged sentences to accomplish its previously declared

sentencing goal by changing concurrent terms to consecutive terms, as long

as the new sentence is not found to be vindictive. See Sands v. State, 899

So. 2d 1208, 1210-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Herring v. State, 411 So. 2d 966

(Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

      Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

                                      5