From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 16, 2000
772 So. 2d 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Summary

In Ray v. State, 772 So.2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Kwil v. State, 768 So.2d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the Second District found that the defendants were not adversely affected by the unconstitutional amendments to the sentencing guidelines because the records reflected that the trial courts imposed the upward departure sentences based on statutory factors that were equally valid under the 1994 and 1995 sentencing guidelines.

Summary of this case from Davis v. State

Opinion

No. 2D00-2401

Opinion filed August 16, 2000.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(i) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge.


Appellant Wallace Ray challenges his sentence for offenses he committed on July 4, 1996. We affirm.

In a motion filed in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, Ray alleged that he should be resentenced pursuant to Heggs v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S137 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2000), revised by 25 Fla. L. Weekly S359 (Fla. May 4, 2000). The trial court denied Ray's motion because it found that Ray was given a departure sentence based on statutory aggravating factors which were equally valid under the 1994 and 1995 guidelines. We affirm the departure sentence imposed because Ray was not "adversely affected by the amendments made by chapter 95-184." Id.

While conceding that his departure sentence may be valid, Ray contends that he is still entitled to relief because his gain time was adversely affected by the amendments to section 944.275, Florida Statutes (1995), made by chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida. We do not address the merits of this claim because Ray must first present this claim through the administrative channels of the Department of Corrections (DOC).See Clements v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1671 (Fla. 2d DCA July 12, 2000). If Ray is not satisfied with the ruling of the DOC, he can then file a petition for mandamus with the appropriate circuit court. See Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Section 26 of chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, made certain changes to the gain time statute. See § 944.275, Fla. Stat. (1995). Heggs declared chapter 95-184 unconstitutional in its entirety. However, the major 1995 amendment to section 944.275 was made by chapter 95-294, Laws of Florida, a chapter not addressed in Heggs.

Affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Ray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 16, 2000
772 So. 2d 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

In Ray v. State, 772 So.2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Kwil v. State, 768 So.2d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the Second District found that the defendants were not adversely affected by the unconstitutional amendments to the sentencing guidelines because the records reflected that the trial courts imposed the upward departure sentences based on statutory factors that were equally valid under the 1994 and 1995 sentencing guidelines.

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

Ray v. State

Case Details

Full title:WALLACE RAY, Appellant v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Aug 16, 2000

Citations

772 So. 2d 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

State v. Ross

PER CURIAM. We have for review Ross v. State, 804 So.2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), which expressly and directly…

State v. Lemon

PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision in Lemon v. State, 769 So.2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), which…