From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Puzio v. State

Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District
Aug 11, 2021
322 So. 3d 695 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

No. 4D17-3034

08-11-2021

David PUZIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Ashley D. Kay and Kevin J. Kulik, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Ashley D. Kay and Kevin J. Kulik, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

Gerber, J.

In Puzio v. State , 278 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (" Puzio I "), we concluded the trial court erred when resentencing the defendant under section 775.082(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2017), because "no jury has found beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victims." Id. at 85-86. We further held the error was harmful because "[t]he record does not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim[s]." Id. at 86. However, rather than remanding for a de novo resentencing under section 775.082(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2017), pursuant to Williams v. State , 242 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018), we remanded for ministerial correction of the defendant's sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2. because, during the resentencing hearing, the trial court already had stated "it equally finds a sixty-year sentence appropriate under section 775.082(1)(b)(2) in light of the facts of this case," thus conclusively showing the trial court would have imposed the same sentence. Id.

In Puzio v. State , No. SC19-1511, 320 So.3d 684 (Fla. June 24, 2021) (" Puzio II "), our supreme court quashed Puzio I and remanded to this court with instructions to remand to the trial court for a de novo resentencing as required by Williams . Puzio II , 320 So.3d at 685–86. Our supreme court reasoned that, despite the trial court's statement, a ministerial correction of the defendant's sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2. would fall short of the de novo resentencing which Williams requires. Id. Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand to the trial court for a de novo resentencing as required by Williams on the first degree murder counts under section 775.082(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2017). We affirm on the defendant's other arguments without further discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for de novo resentencing as instructed.

Conner, C.J., and Metzger, Elizabeth, Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Puzio v. State

Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District
Aug 11, 2021
322 So. 3d 695 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)
Case details for

Puzio v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVID PUZIO, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court:Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District

Date published: Aug 11, 2021

Citations

322 So. 3d 695 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)