From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jiles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Oct 2, 2009
18 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

Summary

reversing when the trial court noted at sentencing that the defendant "maintained his innocence at trial and during sentencing"

Summary of this case from Davis v. State

Opinion

No. 5D08-2605.

October 2, 2009.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Volusia County, James Clayton, J.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Kevin A. Jiles appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary of a dwelling with a firearm, false imprisonment with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.' We find no reversible error relating to Jiles' trial, and affirm the convictions without elaboration. However, we agree with Jiles that the sentencing record reflects a consideration by the court of improper sentencing factors. Specifically, after Jiles maintained his innocence at trial and during sentencing, the judge credited a co-defendant for "accept[ing] responsibility for what he did and . . . [being] willing to take the hit for what he did without going through the process." By contrast, the judge noted that Jiles did not "accept responsibility" but "denied [his] involvement." These are improper sentencing considerations. See, e.g., Hannum v. State, 13 So.3d 132, 135-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding trial court's improper consideration during sentencing of fact that defendant maintained his innocence at trial and at sentencing and refused to take responsibility for his actions was equivalent to a denial of due process and thus constituted fundamental error); Bracero v. State, 10 So.3d 664, 665-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that consideration of claim of innocence as a factor in determining sentences violated defendant's due process rights); Soto v. State, 874 So.2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding that defendant's protestation of innocence and unwillingness to admit guilt were impermissible considerations for sentencing, and that a trial court's statements indicating consideration of those factors required reversal for resentencing before another judge).

Accordingly, we reverse the sentences and remand with directions that Jiles be resentenced before a different judge.

CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES REVERSED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

LAWSON, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jiles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Oct 2, 2009
18 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

reversing when the trial court noted at sentencing that the defendant "maintained his innocence at trial and during sentencing"

Summary of this case from Davis v. State

reversing the defendant's sentence that was improperly based on defendant's denial of involvement and failure to accept responsibility

Summary of this case from Allen v. State

reversing sentence and remanding for resentencing before a different judge because original judge improperly based sentence upon defendant's denying his involvement and failing to accept responsibility

Summary of this case from Jackson v. State
Case details for

Jiles v. State

Case Details

Full title:Kevin A. JILES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Oct 2, 2009

Citations

18 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

Citing Cases

Ryan v. State

Where it is reasonably evident that the trial court, in determining the appropriate sentence, considered at…

Robinson v. State

It is improper for a sentencing court to factor into sentencing the fact that a defendant has maintained his…