You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Benning v. State

Citations: 768 So. 2d 478; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9443; 2000 WL 1034622Docket: No. 2D97-4978

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 28, 2000; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Michael Benning appealed his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery, with both parties submitting briefs under Anders v. California, acknowledging the absence of meritorious grounds for appeal. However, the court's independent review revealed that Benning was sentenced under guidelines declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court in Heggs v. State due to a violation of the single subject provision of the Florida Constitution. Benning's offense occurred on December 15, 1996, and he was sentenced to ninety-five months based on the 1995 guidelines as amended by chapter 95-184. Given that he committed the offense within the relevant window period, he is entitled to a reconsideration of his sentence. The case is remanded for this purpose. Additionally, while typically an appellate court would appoint new counsel or allow for a supplemental brief if an issue is found, in this instance, it is unnecessary as the error is clear from the record. Judges Whatley and Seals concur.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Procedure for Identifying Errors

Application: In this case, the appellate court did not appoint new counsel or require a supplemental brief because the error concerning the sentencing guidelines was clear from the record.

Reasoning: Additionally, while typically an appellate court would appoint new counsel or allow for a supplemental brief if an issue is found, in this instance, it is unnecessary as the error is clear from the record.

Right to Reconsideration of Sentence

Application: Benning is entitled to a reconsideration of his sentence because his offense occurred within the window period affected by the unconstitutional guidelines.

Reasoning: Given that he committed the offense within the relevant window period, he is entitled to a reconsideration of his sentence.

Unconstitutionality of Sentencing Guidelines

Application: The court identified that Michael Benning was sentenced under guidelines that were declared unconstitutional due to a violation of the single subject provision of the Florida Constitution.

Reasoning: However, the court's independent review revealed that Benning was sentenced under guidelines declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court in Heggs v. State due to a violation of the single subject provision of the Florida Constitution.