Roger D. Seeley v. State , 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4424 ( 2017 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ROGER D. SEELEY,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D16-3793
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 31, 2017
3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Keith A. Carsten, Judge.
Roger D. Seeley, Florida City, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Roger Seeley appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence
filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In November of 1996,
Seeley was convicted of capital sexual battery and sentenced to life in prison. His
judgment and sentence were affirmed. Seeley v. State, 701 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA
1997).
In Seeley’s rule 3.800(a) motion, he alleges that his offense occurred between
January 1, 1994 and December 17, 1995. These dates span two different sets of
guidelines, and he contends that he should have been sentenced under the more lenient
version of the guidelines. In 1994, capital sexual battery was punishable by life in prison
with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years’ incarceration. § 775.082(1), Fla. Stat.
(1993); § 775.082(1), Fla. Stat. (1994) (effective May 25, 1994). Effective October 1,
1995, parole was abolished for capital felonies, and capital sexual battery was punishable
by life in prison. § 775.082(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). Here, under the rule of lenity, Seeley
should have been sentenced pursuant to the 1993 version of the statute to life with the
possibility of parole after twenty-five years. See Duffy v. State, 874 So. 2d 1242, 1243
(Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also Robinson v. State, 955 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
Seeley only attached one page of his sentence to his motion, and it reflects that
he was sentenced to “natural life.” There is no indication on this page that he is eligible
for parole after twenty-five years. However, it is not clear whether eligibility for parole is
provided for elsewhere in the judgment and sentence. Therefore, this matter is reversed
and remanded to the trial court to either attach the judgment and sentence reflecting that
Seeley did receive a life sentence with eligibility for parole after a minimum mandatory
twenty-five year term, or the trial court may correct the sentence to reflect his parole
eligibility after completion of the twenty-five year minimum mandatory term.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER and LAMBERT, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
2