Paul Thomas Kartsonis v. State of Florida ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •          FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D19-1172
    _____________________________
    PAUL THOMAS KARTSONIS,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
    Steven B. Whittington, Judge.
    September 14, 2020
    ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRITTEN OPINION
    PER CURIAM.
    Appellant timely filed a motion for rehearing and request for
    issuance of a written opinion. We deny the motion for rehearing
    but grant Appellant’s motion for issuance of a written opinion.
    Accordingly, we withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the
    following. 1
    1 Judge Long replaced Judge Wolf on the panel after Judge
    Wolf retired.
    Appellant claims it was error for a successor judge to rule on
    and deny his rule 3.800(b) motion because the original sentencing
    judge was still available. 2 Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
    3.700(c)(1) provides:
    In any case, other than a capital case, in which it is
    necessary that sentence be pronounced by a judge other
    than the judge who presided at trial or accepted the plea,
    the sentencing judge shall not pass sentence until the
    judge becomes acquainted with what transpired at the
    trial, or the facts, including any plea discussions,
    concerning the plea and the offense.
    (emphasis added).
    Appellant suggests this rule should apply to all sentencing
    related matters. However, on its face, rule 3.700(c) is applicable
    only when a sentence is pronounced. See generally Lawley v. State,
    
    377 So. 2d 824
    (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The rule that a judge other
    than the original presiding trial judge should not pronounce a
    sentence absent necessity applies only in the context of a trial
    judge exercising discretion to determine and impose an
    appropriate sentence.
    Id. at 825.
    Where there is no discretionary
    resentencing, the rule does not impact a trial court’s resolution of
    post-conviction matters just because they address or relate to
    underlying sentencing issues. This distinguishes Gay v. State, 
    898 So. 2d 1203
    (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005), the primary case relied on by
    Appellant, because the defendant in Gay was resentenced by a
    different judge. In this case, Appellant’s motion was denied and a
    new sentence was not pronounced.
    AFFIRMED.
    ROBERTS, WINOKUR, and LONG, JJ., concur.
    2 Appellant raises two arguments on appeal. His motion for
    rehearing and a written opinion speaks only to his second
    argument. We address the second here and affirm as to the first
    without further comment.
    2
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
    _____________________________
    Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A.,
    Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham,
    Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1172

Filed Date: 9/14/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/14/2020