From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Macintosh v. State

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
Jan 8, 2016
182 So. 3d 888 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Opinion

No. 5D15–919.

01-08-2016

Damien Osborne MACINTOSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Robert J. Pearce III, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Robert J. Pearce III, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion

ORFINGER, J.

Damien O. MacIntosh appeals his five-year sentence for grand theft and assault. Although the sentence was authorized by the Criminal Punishment Code, section 921.002, Florida Statutes (2014), MacIntosh correctly argues that the trial court violated his due process rights by basing his sentence, at least in part, on uncharged or dismissed offenses. See Crouse v. State, 101 So.3d 901, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that while sentencing court may consider “any and all information that reasonably might bear on the proper sentence,” it may not consider “unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct”);

Yisrael v. State, 65 So.3d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that “[c]onsideration of pending or dismissed charges during sentencing results in a denial of the defendant's due process rights”).

In this case, the trial court's comments indicate that the sentence was influenced by its belief that MacIntosh had committed uncharged acts of violence against another individual. Although this may be a proper sentencing consideration, here, the allegations of violence were unsubstantiated hearsay from the assistant state attorney, to which MacIntosh objected. Because we cannot determine whether MacIntosh's sentence was influenced by the consideration of the improper argument, we remand for resentencing by a different judge. See McGill v. State, 148 So.3d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Reese v. State, 639 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Macintosh v. State

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
Jan 8, 2016
182 So. 3d 888 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Case details for

Macintosh v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAMIEN OSBORNE MACINTOSH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court:DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 8, 2016

Citations

182 So. 3d 888 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

And because we are unable to say that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence absent…

Shelko v. State

This comment, plus the judge's statement immediately after sentencing that the money found in Shelko's…