The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

Alexander Galindez v. State of Florida
SC05-1341

WILL CALL T HE LAST C ASE T HI S M ORNING WHI CH I S G ALIN DE Z V ERSUS STAT E OF F LO RI DA . GOO D MOR NING.

GOOD MORNING AND MAY IT P LEASE THE COURT. SHA NNON McK EN NA , A SSIS TANT P UBLI C D EF EN DE R O N B EHALF OF THE PETITIONER , M R. GAL IN DEZ. THIS COURT HAS ALW AY S APPLIED THE S ENTE NC IN G L AW IN E FFEC T AT T HE T IM E O F THE D EFENDANT'S R ESEN TE NC E , EVE N IF THI S LAW HAS CHA NG ED SIN CE T HE D EF ENDA NT 'S O RIGI NA L CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WERE FINAL . J US TICE : L ET M E A SK Y OU A BOUT THIS C ASE. M R. GAL INDEZ ADM IT TED T O MANY OF T HE FACTS T HA T W ER E ALL EG ED ; IS THAT RIGHT?

THERE WAS A CON FE SS IO N A DMITTE D.

JUSTICE: AND WHAT D ID T HA T CONFESS IO N CON TA IN AS FAR AS HIS A DM ISSI ON?

I N HIS C ONFE SSIO N H E ADM ITTE D THAT H E D ID H AV E S EXUA L I NTER COUR SE W IT H T HE V ICTI M.

JUSTICE: AND D OESN 'T BLA KELY S PE CI FI CALL Y E XE MP T FAC TS T HA T ARE ADM IT TE D B Y T HE D EF EN DANT FRO M THE R EQ UIREMENT OF A J URY F INDING ?

WHA T BLA KE LY , T HE SPE CIFI C POINT T HA T B LA KELY E XEMPTS FRO M T HE J UR Y F INDING I S I F T HE DEF EN DANT E NTERS A P LE A O R I F HE E NTERS A W RI TTEN F INDING O R A STI PU LATI ON . > > J USTI CE: W ELL , THE E XA CT L AN GU AGE I S THA T F OR P RINTIN G P URPO SE S , T HE MAXIM UM SEN TENC E , IS T HA T T HE J UDGE M AY I MPOS E S OL ELY ON THE BAS IS O F T HE F AC TS REF LECTED IN THE J UR Y VERDICT OR ADMITTED B Y T HE D EFENDA NT. NOW, IF THE DEFENDANT HAS A C ONFESSION THAT I S A DMIT TE D A T T RIAL , W HY I SN'T THA T P ART OF THE F AC TS THAT A RE ADM IT TED BY T HE D EFEN DA NT ?

YOUR H ON OR , T HE SIM PL E A NSWE R T O T HA T I S T HA T T HE WAY T HE COU RT S HAV E I NTER PR ETED THE LAN GU AG E I N B LAKELY I S T HA T T HE RE H AS T O B E A SPE CI FI C A DMIS SION , E IT HE R D URIN G S ENTE NC IN G O R I N A P LE A C OLLO QUY. NOW , T HE S TATE , NEI THER THE S TATE N OR T HE T HIRD DIS TR IC T COURT OF APPEA L ADD RESS ED T HAT ISS UE , A ND T HAT' S W HY I T IS NOT A DD RESS ED I N ANY OF THE BRIEFS O R A NY THING T HAT WAS P RE SENT ED T O T HI S COURT. IF THAT IS A N ISS UE T HE N I WOULD BE H AP PY T O BRI EF T HA T S MALL ISSUE BEF OR E T HI S C OURT AND PRO VI DE THI S C OURT WITH THAT CAS E L AW . G ENER AL LY THAT'S THE WAY I T H AS BEEN. CHIEF JUSTICE: WE HAV E SEVERAL PENDING C ASES O N T HIS I SSUE A S T O W HE THER A PPREND I A ND BLA KELY APP LY T O A R ESEN TE NCIN G P ROCE EDING.

YES, YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THERE ARE SEVEN C ASES P EN DING O N THAT I SSUE. CH IEF JUSTICE: NOW, THE FAC TUAL FIN DING S WOU LD H AV E T O , A RE M AD E D URIN G T HE N OT D URIN G S ENTE NCIN G BEC AU SE S ENTE NC ING I S A , OTHE R THA N A D EA TH CAS E I S A J UD GE -O NL Y P RO CEEDING , S O S INCE T HE C ONVI CTION WAS F INAL , W HY W OULD, W OULD N' T T HA T B E A R ETROACTI VE APP LI CATION O F A PPRE ND I AND BLA KE LY ? THE ANS WE R T O T HA T I S B ECAUSE T HI S C OURT I S USE D E XTENSI VE LY AND T HE FED ER AL C OU RT S TATE D THA T A PPRE ND I AND BLA KELY A PPLY T O S ENTENCING. T HEY DO NOT APP LY TO C ONVI CTIONS . I N T HE H UGHE S COU RT WHE N T HEY LOOKE D A T THE R ET RO A CTIVIT Y A NALYSI S W HE N T HI S C OURT EXA MINE D I T I T S PE CI FICALLY NOT ED T HE F AC T THAT APPRENDI A ND S PECIFI CALL Y WAS L OOKE D A T DOES N OT I MP UG N T HE A CCUR AC Y OF CON VICTIO NS . CHIE F JUS TICE: B UT I 'M T HINKING SINCE Y OU AGR EE WE H EL D APP RE ND I N OT T O B E R ETROAC TIVE.

YES. CHIE F J US TICE : S O S IN CE T HE , AND , T HERE FORE , NOT O F T HE C AT EGOR Y OF ERR OR S T HA T T HERE WOU LD B E A V ALUE O F I NDIC ATED B Y R ET RO AC TIVE A PPLI CATION , THE O NL Y REMED Y I N C AS ES W HERE T HE C ONVICTIO N I S F INAL A ND THE O THER E XC EPTI ON S D O NOT A PPLY WOULD B E T O H AV E T O R ECONVE NE A J UR Y T O M AK E S PECI FI C FAC TUAL FIN DING S , IS T HA T W HA T Y OU R ARG UM EN T W OULD BE?

THAT WOULD B E T HE O NL Y R EMED Y , A ND I N T HI S CAS E T HAT REM ED Y W OU LD B E P RE SIP O --- P RECI PI TE D B Y DOU BL E J EOPARDY . > > JUSTI CE: IT S EEMS TO M E YOU CAN'T H AVE IT BOTH WAYS. EITHE R T HE JUR Y DID N OT DETERMINE IT, AND , T HE REFO RE , B ECAUSE O F B LA KELY , Y OU HAV E T O R EVER SE , O R T HE JUR Y D ETER MI NE D I T , DID D ETER MI NE I T AND B LA KELY D OE SN'T A PP LY . B UT I N THI S C AS E THE J UR Y SEE MED , THE J URY WAS ASK ED WHE THER T HERE WAS PENET RA TION O R CON TA CT . YES , YO UR HONOR. JUSTICE: AND THE JUR Y S AID YES THE RE WAS P ENET RATION O R CON TACT BUT T HEY WER EN 'T A SK ED WHICH IS EXA CTLY WHY Y OU ARE ARG UI NG THAT WE SHOULD REV ER SE UND ER B LAKELY T HE Y W ER EN'T ASK ED WHETH ER THERE W AS PEN ETRATI ON I TS EL F AND T HEREFORE I F B LAKE LY D OE S A PP LY HOW C AN T HERE B E A D OUBLE JEO PARD Y I SS UE? I T S EE MS T O M E I T H AS T O B E O NE O R T HE O THER. IT CAN'T BE BOTH.

WELL , YOUR HON OR , T HE ANSWER TO THAT W OU LD LIE M ORE SPECI FI CALLY IN THE B ROADER RANGE O F DOU BL E JEOPA RD Y CAS E L AW WHI CH AGAIN UNFORTUNA TE LY BECAUSE OF THE STATE , N EI THER THE S TATE NOR THE THI RD D ISTR IC T C OURT O F A PPEA L R AI SE D T HAT ISSUE, THAT CASE L AW I S N OT BEFORE THIS COURT . N OW, WHA T I WOU LD A RGUE H ER E I S T HA T .

JUSTICE: WE H AVE T O DETERMINE WHAT THE REMEDY I S , T HOUGH , AND Y OU 'RE SAY IN G THE REMEDY I S Y OU HAV E T O TAKE AWAY T HOSE POI NTS. Y OU CAN'T HAV E A J UR Y D ETERMI NA TION BUT I T S EE MS TO ME THAT THE W HO LE PUR PO SE O F BLA KELY I S THA T I F I T W ASN'T D ON E NOW I T H AS TO B E DONE AND A JUR Y HAS T O DETERMINE IT AND Y OU R E NTIRE A RGUMENT I S B ASED O N THE FACT THAT THE JUR Y DI D NOT D ETERMI NE P ENET RATION. WELL, IF THE J UR Y DI D NOT DET ERMINE P EN ETRA TION T HE N THERE IS N O DOU BL E J EO PARD Y I SSUE. W HA T THE P ET ITIO NE R W OULD ASK I S T HA T I F THE REM ED Y I S FAS HI ONED T HIS SHOULD BE R EMAN DED FOR A J UR Y TO D ECIDE WHET HER OR NOT THE RE WAS PEN ET RATI ON , T HA T THA T WOU LD T HE N LEAVE T HE I SSUE OF D OUBLE J EOPA RD Y O PE N TO B E REL IT IG ATED F OR THE TRI AL C OURT BECAUSE I T HAS NOT B EEN L IT IG AT ED NOW . J USTI CE : W AS T HERE ONL Y ONE VICTI M I N T HI S C AS E? YES , YOUR HONOR.

JUSTICE: AND THERE W ERE SEVERAL CONVICTIONS IN T HIS C ASE?

YES, HE WAS C ONVICT ED OF T HREE O F F IV E C OUNT S H E W AS CHA RGED WITH.

JUSTICE: AND ONE OF T HOSE C OUNT S W AS I MP REGN AT IO N O F A M INOR C HILD ?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

JUSTICE: SO M Y Q UE ST IO N IS THEN O N THA T P ARTI CULA R COUNT, I W OULD A SSUM E ISN 'T P ENETRATI ON S ORT O F A SSUM ED I N THA T COU NT ? Y ES , YO UR H ONOR , I T I S , AND W E'RE O NL Y ARG UI NG THE P ENETRA TION P OINTS ASS ESSE D FOR THE F IR ST C OUNT O F L EW D A ND LAS CI VI OU S CON DUCT . WE ARE N OT DIS PU TING THA T THE PEN ETRA TI ON P OINTS ON T HA T C OU NT S HO UL D BE I NC LUDE D.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT WAS A DIFFERENT ACT?

YES, IT WAS A D IF FERE NT ACT. IN FACT , H E W AS C HARG ED W IT H F IVE DIFFE RE NT ACT S A ND T HE Y A LL S PA N D IFFE RENT T IMES I N THE I NF ORMA TION . JUSTI CE: I T W AS NOT A LL O NE CRIMI NA L EPI SO DE?

NO , IT W AS ALL EGED THA T TH ERE W ER E S EV ERAL D IFFE RE NT CRI MI NAL E PISO DE S THA T OCCURRED OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS IF NOT A L ON GE R P ERIOD OF T IME. JUSTI CE : BUT I F WE I GNOR ED THAT , T HE POI NT S FOR THAT, AND I F YOU ACC EP T T HE P OI NT S FOR THE O THER C OU NT S THA T Y OU A CC ED E , DOE S T HE S CORE S HEET G O TO THE LEV EL O R DOES IT A LLOW S ENTE NCIN G B EYOND THE S TA TUTORY M AXIM UM? Y ES , I T D OE S. T HE S TA TU TE , THE SEN TENC IN G R ANGE WOULD BE B ET WEEN 16 Y EARS AND 2 6 YEA RS . JUSTI CE : S O WOU LD T HE PART THAT YOU ARE NOT D ISPUTING THA T W AS F OUND B Y THE JUR Y , H E WOU LD B E S UBJECT T O A S ENTE NC E B EY ON D T HE STA TU TORY MAX IM UM ? YES , YO UR H ON OR , H E WOULD BE AND I B ELIE VE THI S COU RT HAS T HE BRIEFS FROM THE THIRD D ISTRICT COURT O F APPEAL AND IN T HE BRIEFS IN THE THIRD DISTRIC T COURT O F A PPEAL I'M MOR E A T LEN GT H D ISCUSS THE DIF FERE NT S ENTE NCING R ANGE S. J US TI CE : O KA Y . JUSTI CE : F ROM WHAT I R EA D OF THE I ND ICTM EN T O R THE I NFOR MATION, T HE D ATES I N COUNT ONE AND COU NT FIV E A RE E XACTLY THE S AM E F RO M OCT OBER ' 97 T HR OUGH S OM ETHING ' 98 . H E C OM MI TTED THE SE A CT S. SO THE FAC T THA T H E ADM IT TE D I MPRE GNAT ION DURING THOSEDATES, WHY WOULDN'T THATRELATE TO COUNT ONE S3 IMPREGNATION DURING THOSE DATES, WHY WOULDN'T THATRELATE TO COUNT ONE SINCE THEY RELATE TO THE SAME DATES?

WELL, THE FIRST ANSWER , YOUR HONOR, IS THAT IT IS THE LAW T HA T Y OU C AN'T TAK E PRO OF FRO M O NE C OU NT AND C ROSS I T O VER T O A NO THER COU NT AND, IN FACT , THE J UR Y W AS I NS TR UCTE D I N THI S COU RT , T HE J UR Y WAS INS TRUC TE D T HA T J UST B EC AUSE T HERE A RE SOM E F ACTS FOR O NE C OU NT YOU H AV E T O D EC ID E T HE P RO OF F OR EAC H COU NT I ND IV IDUALL Y . AND D IGGA LL Y , A ND A DD ITIO NA LLY THE POINTS A RE A SSESSE D F OR EAC H IND IVID UA L COUNT AND YOU HAVE T O L OO K AT EAC H C OU NT I NDIV ID UA LL Y AND FINALLY B ECAU SE T HE RE W ERE SEVERAL I NSTA NC ES DURING THAT SAM E P ERIO D O F T IME WE CAN NO T B E S UR E I F T HE JUR Y L OOKED A T O NE I NSTANCE TO D ECID E T HE V ERDICT FOR EAC H C OUNT . CHIEF JUSTICE: G OING BACK TO WHAT JUS TICE B ELL ASK ED , ON THE ISS UES T HA T ARE NOT IN C ONTR OV ER SY , THE S ENTE NC ING RANGE IS A LREA DY OVER THE STATUTO RY M AX IMUM . Y ES, YOUR H ON OR . CH IE F J USTICE: AND HE W AS S ENTE NCED O N R ESEN TENC IN G WITHIN THAT RANGE , R IGHT , 2 4 Y EARS? YES , YOUR HONOR. CHIEF J USTICE: SO WHY I S T HAT T HE N A N APP RE ND I V IOLATION , BEC AUSE I THO UG HT T HE W HOLE P OI NT I S T O MAK E S URE A J UR Y DET ER MINA TION D ETERMI NES IF I T I S G OING T O B E OV ER THE STA TU TO RY M AXIM UM T HAT A JUR Y M AK ES T HAT D ETER MI NATI ON B UT S INCE T HEY HAV E A LR EADY MAD E I T A S T O A NO THER C OU NT THA T' S NOT IN ISSUE, DOE SN 'T T HA T OBV IATE T HE APP RENDI P ROBLEM?

IF I A M UND ERST AN DI NG Y OU , Y OU'RE S AY IN G THA T B ECAU SE H IS S ENTE NC E W HE N A NOTH ER C OUNT E XC EEDE D THE S TA TUTO RY M AX W HERE I T W AS A PP ROPR IA TE , T HEN W HY DOE S I T M ATTE R REG ARDING THI S C OUNT? CH IEF J USTICE: BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT STACKING THESE. T HESE ARE BEI NG R UN C ONSECU TIVE LY , ARE N'T T HEY? Y ES. WELL, YOUR HONOR, A C OUPL E OF P OINTS WITH T HAT. S PECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE A RE O PERATI NG UNDER THE GUI DE LINE S YS TEM BET WEEN '94 A ND ' 98 .

CHIE F J USTI CE: D ON'T T HROW T HA T I N . WHAT H APPENED IS THA T T HE L IMIT O N CON SE CUTI VE S ENTENCIN G I S FOU ND B Y THE UPP ER P ORTION O F THE CCALUIDELI NE S AND T HAT'S WHY W E H AVE A N APP REND I VIO LATI ON HER E , B EC AUSE T HE UPP ER B OUND WIT H T HE M AX IMUM S ENTENC E P RE SCRI BE D WIT HO UT T HE P EN ETRA TION P OINT S O N T HI S C OUNT I S LES S THA N I T W OULD B E I F THE PEN ET RA TI ON POI NTS WOULD BE INC LU DE D , AND SO W E'RE NOT L TIING THING AT THE I ND ADIDUAL COUNT S. WE'RE LOOKING AT T HE M AXIM UM S ENTENC E P RE SCRIBED BY THE CCALUIDELI NES , W HICH IS S PECIFI C TO T HE ' 94 T O '98 G UIDELI NES. CHIEF JUSTICE: WE'LL TAKE YOUR WORD O N IT.

JUS TI CE : LET M E G ET B AC K TO THE R ET RO A CT IVIT Y ANA LYSI S AND I T HINK I T RELATES A LITTLE BIT TO YOUR D OUBLE J EO PA RD Y C LAIM T HA T WE C AN 'T I MP AN EL ANO TH ER J URY. NOW, FOR T HE S EN TENC IN G , A ND I T S EE MS T O M E THA T IF YOU C AN'T D O THA T , I F Y OU ARE C OR RECT , T HE N T HI S R EALL Y DOE S R ELATE TO T HE C ONVICTIO N BECAUSE A T T HA T T IME THAT THE J UR Y D ETER MI NES ALL O F T HE SE F ACTS AND THE RE FORE IF THE JURY CANNOT GO BAC K A ND D ETERMINE ALL O F T HE SE F AC TS T HE N W E A RE M AK IN G A PP REND I R ETROAC TIVE AND I T D OE S R ELATE TO T HE C ONVI CTIO N. L THERE WOULD BE T WO P OINT S T O THAT, YOUR HON OR . F IRST O F A LL T HE R EMED Y O F I MPANEL ING A J UR Y R EGAR DI NG D OUBL E JAND IPA RD Y FOR R IGWITH NOW I'M ONLY M AK IN G T HA T A RGUMENT S PECI FI C T O MR. G AL INDEZ SO AS A R UL E O F DDONAW, WHETHER OR NOT D OUBL E J EOPARD Y WOU LD P ROHI BI T THAT R EMED Y IN O THER C AS ES , Y OU KNOW, I THE R NOT C OMME NTIN G O N T HAT. J USTICE: WE H AV E T O M AK E R ULES T HA T A PP LY T O CCUTNFORTU NATELY PAND IHEYE OTHER THAN YOUR C LIEN T I N THE F UTURE CASES . YES, YOUR HON OR , A ND W HA T I WOULD SAY THE N I S THA T YOU C OULD P ROVI DE FOR THA T REM EDY THAT A J UR Y B E I MPAN ELED AND THEN T HE C OURT WOULD T HEN HAVE T O CON SI DER WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS D OUBLE J EO PARD Y U NDER S PECIFI C F ACTU AL C ASES . T HERE A RE S OM E TYP ES O F C ASES FOR E XAMP LE I F T HE S ENTE NC ING F ACTOR I S B AS ED O N WHETH ER A MIN OR C HILD W AS PRE SENT A T THE INC IDEN T A ND P OINTS CA N B E ADDED FOR T HA T , A ND THA T TIDERE O F F AC TO R W OULD P ER HAPS NOT B E S UBJE CT T O DOUBL E JEO PA RD Y BEC AU SE T HA T WAS N OT BEF ORE THE JURY.

JUSTICE: BUT AGAIN I F THIS IS S OMETHING THAT THE JURY HAS T O D O U PO N C ONVICT ION AT THE SAME TIMETHAT IT DET ER MI NE S GUILT , THE N A PPLY IN G B LAKE LY A ND A PPREND I , W E A RE APP LYIN G I T TO THE CON VI CTIO N T HA T DOES A PPLY AND I T WOULD B E R ETROACTI VE. WELL , YO UR H ONOR , I T MAY H AVE THE E FF ECT THAT THE C OURT, T HE S TATE C ANNO T N OW G O B AC K A ND PRO VE T HAT. I N FAC T , Y OU C AN'T I MPAN EL ANO THER JURY, B UT W E H AV E T WO C OMPE TI NG P RINC IP LE S O F DDON SP HER E. W E HAVE T HE BED RO L P RINCIPLE T HA T THI S C OURT HAS STATED AND A LW AY S I MPLEME NTED IS THAT T HE R ESENTE NC ING I S A CLE AN SLA TE, AND THE C ONCE SSIO NS A RE ATTAC HE D.

JUSTICE: A CLEAN S LATE FOR THE STATE AS WELL A S T HE DEF ENDANT, T HE STATE WOU LD PRESENT, FOR E AS A GGRAVATING C IR CUMS TA NCES THAT IT DIDN'T P RESE NT BEFORE, RIGWITH?

AND I N FAC T I N C OU CHER V ERSUS S TATE THEY S AI D T HE S TATE COU LD G O S O FAR A S T O NNT C APITAL M UR DE R C ONVI CT IO N A FTER . J USTI CE : T HE N W HY IS TH ER E A D OU BL E J AND I PARD Y ISSUE IF IT IS A CLE AN S LATE?

THE D OUBL E J EO PARD Y ISS UE W OULD IMP LICA TE D IF FE RE NT C ONCERN S , A ND I THE R S IMHEY Y S AYING THA T T HE RE A RE D IFFERE NT A VE NUES O F LAW AND T HAT THERE A RE D IFFE RE NT CONCEN APS IMPLICATE D I N T HE D OUBLE JEOPA RDY.

JUSTICE: T HE D OU BL E IIDEREAND I PARDY C ON CEN APS W HETHER A DEFEN SLNT CAN BE CONVICTEDOF A C RIME TWI CE O R WHE TH ER H E C AN B E I MPOS ED , A S ENTENC E CAN B E E NHAN CE D? D OU BLE J EOPA RD Y GOE S T O B OT H SEN TE NCES A ND I N H ER E THE D OUBL E J AND I PARD Y V IO LA TION WHICH HAS N OT BEE N BRI EF ED B EFOR E THE C OURT B UT I T W OU LD E NTAI L T HE FAC T THAT THE JUR Y WAS ACT UALL Y P RESE NTED W IT H T HE QUE ST IO NS T O WHETHE R OR NOT T HERE W AS CCUTNION OR PEN ET RA TI ON I N THI S C OUNT .

JUSTICE: BUT IT D ID N' T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AND T HAT' S COR RE CT . EE COW, T HE C AS E L SP , AGA IN , YOU KNOW , I'M S OR RY BEC AUSE I DON'T HAV E ANY CAS E L SP T O S PECI FICALLY REFER T O ON THI S ISSUE , W OULD STA TE THA T B ECAUSE THE Y WERE PRE SENTED WITH THAT QUE ST IO N , D OUBL E IIDEREAND IPA RDY W OULD A PP LY . J USTI CE : BUT THE Y WER EN'T P RESE NTED WITH , I G UE SS I T IS Y OU R E NT IRE P OINT H ERE I S T HEY WER EN 'T PRE SE NTED WIT H T HAT Q UEST ION. THE Y W ER EN'T P RE SE NTED WITH THE NARROW N.UE ST IO N W AS T HERE PEN ETRA TI ON . THEY WERE PRESENTED W ITH T HE QUE STIO N WAS T HE RE NNT

YES, YOUR H ON OR , AND THE S TATE , I N FAC T , YOU K NO W , E VE N D URIN G I TS C LOSI NG A RGUM ENT T HE Y R EQUE ST ED A N I NSTRUCTION O N CON TA CT AND REG ARDI NG UCKON. THE S TATE A RG UE D B OT H ALT ERNATIVES. WE HAVE DIF FE RE NT H ER E FRO M OTHER C ASES I S W E D O HAV E T HE S EN L V ER DICT AND THA T SHO WS THA T T HE J UR Y W AS PRE SENTED W IT H BOT H O PT IONS B UT THE Y W ERE ONL Y A SKED T O FIND ONE, AND, Y OU K NO W , AGA IN BECAUSE OF T HE D OUBL E J EOPA RD Y POINT WE W OULD BE HAPPY TO FULLY BRI EF T HI S I SSUE A S I T HAS N OT B EE N P RESENTED BEF ORE THIS C OU RT , BUT Y OU A LS O M EN TION ED T HE F AC T THAT , Y OU K NO W , I T I S A C LEAN S LATE FOR BOTH PAR TIES A ND THA T GOE S T O O NE O F THE NNT RES ENTENCING IS THAT IT IS , I N FAC T , I T I S A B RI GHT- LINE R ULE AND S OM ET IMES I T B ENEF IT S THE STATE AND S OMETIM ES I T BEN EFIT S THE DEF ENDA NT , A ND T HI S C OU RT S CKOULD N OT NOW CARVE O UT A N E XCEPTION T O T HA T BRIGHT-LINE RULE . JUS TI CE : BUT Y OU S EE M T O BE WANTING T O CARVE OUT A N EXCEPTION, TOO, BECAUSE Y OU ARE SAY ING IT I S A G OT CHA , Y OU ON NO W , B LA KE LY R EQ UI RE S THIS. I T DID N'T REQ UI RE I T A T T HE TIME OF THE TRIAL B UT N OW THAT I T RRULE

JRES IT YOU H AV E T O R EVER SE B UT Y OU CAN'T A PPLY I T. YOUR HONOR, THA T TIDER E O F CCALOTCH A ANA LY THERES W OU LD A PPLY T O A THAT Q DEF EN DANT W HO SE SEN TENCE A ND C ON VICT IO N HAD N OT BEE N F INAL A T THE T IM E THDON' WERE ISSUEAS S A DDITIO NALLY THE C ON CEPT B EHIND APPRE ND I AND B LA KELY IS N OT N EW T O F LORISL. NNETRAVER S INCE THI S C OURT ISS UE D O VERFELT AND A LL O F I TS P ROGENY THE F AC T THA T T HE IIDEREURY MUS T F IN D FAC TS S PECIFI C TO T HE C RI MINA L E PISODE I S L ON GSTA NDIN G FLO RISL PRE CE DE NT AND F OR T CKOSE REA SO NS IT WOULD NOT BE, YOU KNOW, U NFAI R I N THI S S ITUA TION . CH IE F JUS TICE: LET'S G O BACK TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT LAW APPLIES. YOU ARE I N YOUR REB UTTA L B UT --LIOU TAL ING THING ABOUT G

JDELINES AND WHAT WAS I N E FFECT IN '94 TO '96 . IF THE G UI DELI NE S CHA NG ED A T T HE TIME O F R ES ENTE NCINNCESIT IS THE G

JDELINES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE CRI ME O CCURRED THAT WOULD A PP LY , C ORRECT?

YES.

S O I T I SN 'T J US T THA T I T IS T HE L AW A T T HE T IM E O F RES ENTE NCING . I T A PP LIES I N A C LE AN SLA TE D E NOV O S ITUA TI ON . YE S , T HERE A RE O THER I MPLICATI ONS THAT ARE R ETERMSE D W ITH WHE N YOU L OO K A T WHI CH G UIDELI NES A PP LY . S OME O F T HO SE CON THEREDE RA TI ON S C ONCEN AP T HE E X-SE D ST FAC T O C LAUS E T HAT A RE N' T A T ISS UE IN T HIS C AS E . CH IE F J USTICE: DO YOU WANT TO SAVE T HE REST O F YOUR TIME FOR R EBUT TA L? T HANK YOU V ER Y M UCH . MAY I T PLE AS E T HE COURT, NNT THE STATE. I THINK THE C OURT R EC EPCK ZES THAT THIS I S , I N F AC T , A C ONVICT ION ISSUE. IT IS A N I SSUE T HA T ACC ORDING T O A PPRE ND I SCKO UL D H AVE B EE N DEC IDED B Y T HE IIDEREURY. CH IEF JUSTICE: I'M N OT S URE, W E ARE STR UG GLIN G WIT H THAT ISSUE, I S THA T I T SEE MS T O ME THA T THE RE I S GOO D ARG UMEN TS O N BOT H SID ES NNETRASSENTI AL LY , THA T I S T HA T B ECAUSE Y OU'VE GOT A SIT UATION W HE RE THE T IM E T HAT S EN TE NCIN G THA T I S A DELIEC TED B Y A PP RE ND I AND B LAKELY , B UT THE DET ERMINA TION M ADE B Y A J UR Y WERE N OT I N ANY P AR TI CULA R C LEAR -C UT S IT CES TION S O WE R EALL Y ALMOST HAVE T O THINK OF THE P OLIC Y ISS UE S T HA T CCALAS S G THIS I S A S CUT AND DRY T O S AY I T I S SOM ETHI NG THA T H AD O CCUR RE D DURING THE J URY P ORTI ON O F THE CON VI CT IO N AND T HE REFORE IT IS FINAL A S T O T HA T AND T HAT'S THE END OF THE STO RY ? W HICH W OULD BE E AS Y . I THI G THAT THI S C OURT R ECOGNIZE D IN HUGHES T HA T W HAT APPRE ND I I S T ALING THING A BOUT I S T HE S IXTH A ME ND MENT R IGHT FOR A J UR Y T RIAL O N THI S ISS UE T HA T I S G OING T O DET ERMINE THAT IS GGN NG TO BE A FACTOR IN T HE SEN TENCING D ETER MINATION. THIS IS WHY ALL O F T HE COURTS THAT HAVE LOU I T , ET- LYTT F OR T HE I SA AC C AS E FR OM T HE FIR ST D ISTR IC T W HERE T HE Y SETERM D THI S CAN A PPLY T O RES ENTE NC IN G , H AV E ALL S AID T HIS IS NOT A SEN TENCIN G I SSUE. T HIS I S A C ON VICT IO N I SSUE . T HI S I S W HY I T G EN IT IS SOMETHING T HA T HAS T O B E D EC IDED B Y T HE J UR Y A T C ONVI CT IO N, AND T HIS I S WHY J UDGE K AH N S AI D ONC E T HE CON VI CT ION I S OVE R WIT H , I T I S O VE R W ITTHO W E CAN'T G O B AC K A ND CHA NG E IT . I N T HE O PINI ON B EL OW , REC EP CKE FD THAT , AND A T H ED C OUNS EL A T O RA L A RGUM EN T A RE YOU SAYING T HA T I F WE G O B AC K N OW , THE O WO Y R EMED Y WOULD B E A N ND C TRI AL ? A RE Y OU S AYIN G T HA T YOU WOU LD WAIVE T HE DOU BL E IIDERE- IIPARDY A RGUM EN T A ND C OUNSEL S ETERMD NO. T HERE I S A D OU BL E J EOPA RD Y I SSUE WIT H T HIS. N OT O NO CARRIER RING CONNECT 115200 CHIEF JUSTICE: IN THE PRESENCE OF A CHI LD , AN D THE A RGUM ENT AT THA T POINT WAS , NO, THERE IS N O J UR Y DET ERMINATI ON THAT IT W AS IN THE PRE SENCE OF T HI S C HI LD , A ND W HY WOU LDN' T T HA T BE S OMETHI NG T HA T WOU LD B E SUB JECT T O THE A PP REND I A NALY SI S ? I 'M NOT - - I WOU LD L IK E TO POINT O UT T O T HE C OURT THAT THIS SENTENCE WAS , I N F AC T , F INAL . T HE RES ENTE NC IN G C AM E A BOUT A S A R ES UL T O F A COL LA TERA L P ROCE ED ING. CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT T HEN AT THAT P OINT THA T' S W HE RE W E G O B AC K T O DE N OV O , EVE N T HE SEN TE NCE A T THE TIM E IF IT WAS FIN AL W E W OULD B E IN A RETRO A CT IVIT Y I SSUE , B ECAUSE T HE SEN TE NC E WA SN'T , W AS V AC ATED , I T WAS R ESENTE NCING , T HE S ENTE NC E W AS NO LON GE R F INAL . WE LL , FOR RET RO ACT IVIT Y PUR POSE S , W E G O B AC K TO THE C ONVICTION, WHE N T HE C ONVICTIO N I S AFF IR ME D O N D IREC T APP EAL. THE C ON VICTION I S S ENTE NC E I S USUALLY B ROUG HT T OGET HE R O N DIREC T A PPEAL . J US TICE : W HAT WAS T HE C OURT TO D O O N T HE R ESENTENCING U NDER T HE ORD ER O F T HE T HI RD D IS TR IC T ? T HE O NL Y I SS UE O N R ESEN TE NCING WAS REG AR DI NG T HE V ICTI M I NJ UR Y POI NT S T HAT W ERE A SS ESSE D O N C OUNT F OUR. T HE C OU NT FOU R C HARG ED S EXUAL CON TA CT , B UT T HE V ICTI M I NJUR Y P OINT S W ER E A SSESSE D FOR P ENET RATI ON . T HE RE WER E 8 0 P OI NT S O F P ENETRATI ON.

JUS TI CE : S O W HA T D ID T HE T RIAL C OURT DO?

THE TRIAL COURT HAD T O R ECALCULA TE THE G UI DE LINE S F OR HIM W IT H ONL Y 4 0 P OINT S OF V IC TI M I NJ UR Y I NS TEAD O F 80 POI NTS. S O THE ONL Y I SS UE B EFOR E THE C OURT A T THE TIM E WAS C ONCERN ING T HE 4 0 P OI NT S O N C OUNT FOU R . B UT A S C OUNS EL POI NT S OUT T HIS WAS A D E N OV O S ENTE NCING WHERE W E HAD T O GO BAC K A ND T HE Y C OU LD HAV E , T HEY HAD T O REA SSES S T HE G UIDELI NES S CO RE S HE ET A ND A T T HA T POINT T HE D EFEN DANT WOULD HAVE THE O PP ORTU NI TY T O R AI SE A NY OTH ER OBJ EC TION S AND THE S TATE WOULD HAVE THE O PPOR TU NITY T O BRING IN , I'M S ORRY ? CH IE F JUSTICE: NO , G O AHEAD. I WAS GOING T O S AY J USTI CE Q UINCE WILL HAVE A Q UEST IO N B UT C OM PLET E J US TICE W EL LS . AL L RIGHT. BUT IT DOESN'T G IV E THE DEFENDANT THE RIGHT TO R ELY O N C AS E L AW THA T HAD O CCUR RED PRI OR TO THE C ONVICT IO N T O C OM E FINAL , I MEA N SUBSEQUEN T TO THE CONVICTION BECOMING FINAL THAT DOES NOT APPLY R ETROAC TI VELY. IF IT DID A PPLY T O I T , T HE N T HAT WO ULD B E A R ETRO ACTI VE A PP LICATION OF IT , WHE RE THIS COURT H AS HEL D T HA T IT DO ES N OT A PPLY RET RO ACTI VELY . JUSTI CE : NOW , YOU D O A GREE THA T T HE CON VICT IO N I N T HIS CASE I S F INAL ? C OR RE CT . J US TICE : A ND I N O RDER T O H AVE A J UR Y DET ER MINA TION O F W HETHER OR NOT T HERE WAS P ENET RATION A T THI S P OI NT I N ORDER T O HAVE A JUR Y D ETERMINATION O F PEN ET RATI ON , Y OU W OULD HAVE T O H AV E A J URY COM E I N A ND P RESE NT E VIDENCE O F W HA T WEN T O N I N T HIS E PISO DE , C OR RECT ? C OR RECT .

JUSTICE: A ND T HE N ISN 'T THAT IN ESSEN CE A R ETRI AL ? CORRE CT .

JUSTICE: S O I T I S Y OU R P OI NT THAT YOU CAN 'T DO THAT? CAN'T D O T HA T , AND I F YOU W ERE T O A PPLY I T A T THA T R ETRIAL T HA T W OULD BE A R ETROACTIVE APP LI CATION OF IT. J USTICE: S O W E'RE AT T HE S ENTENCING, AND YOU 'VE GOT TO TAK E A T THI S NEW S ENTENC ING YOU 'VE GOT T O T AKE THE R ECOR D A S I T EXI ST S , C ORRECT?

CORRECT, CORRECT .

JUSTICE: SO T HE R ECOR D A S I T E XIST S D OES NOT H AV E P EN ET RATION WITH T HE C OUNT THAT WE ARE C ONCE RNED WIT H. SO I F T HE S TA TE , I N FAC T , U SED T HO SE 4 0 POI NT S YOU GET 4 0 POI NT S FOR P EN ETRA TI ON ? 8 0 POI NTS.

JUS TI CE : I F T HE STA TE A TT EM PTED TO U SE T HA T A T T HIS POI NT I N T IM E WOU LD N OT T HAT BE A N A PPRE ND I VIO LATI ON ? I T W OU LD B E - -. JUSTICE: B ECAUSE I C AN 'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT I F YOU A CC EP T T HA T T HE C ONVI CTION IS F INAL AND YOU CAN DO N O MOR E ABO UT I T. R IGHT . B UT THA T' S THE W HOLE POI NT A BOUT RET RO A CTIV IT Y I N T HA T Y OU C AN NO T G O B EY ON D WHE N T HE C ON VI CT IO N B ECAM E F INAL . W HE N THE C ONVI CT IO N B ECAM E FINAL , T HE R ECOR D IS S ET A ND A T T HA T P OI NT A PP REND I D ID N OT E XI ST . J US TI CE: WELL , I THI NK THAT THE PROBLEM THAT I 'M A T LEA ST S TRUG GLIN G WIT H I N T HI S A RG UM EN T IS H AV E W E , I R EC OGNIZE THE P REST ON C ASE A ND I RECOG NI ZE THA T W E HAV E R EPEA TE DL Y SAID T HA T I N R ESENTE NCING A ND D EATH CAS ES , A ND THEN T HE USU AL T YP E O F R ESEN TENC ING THAT W E H AV E A LL B EE N U SE D T O , THA T T HE C LE AN SLA TE R ULE APPLI ES . H AVE W E S AI D THA T I N R ESPE CT T O A STR IC T C ORRE CT IO N O F O UR S CORE SHE ET ? I THI NK I N T HE C AS ES WHE RE THE RE H AS B EE N S CORE SHE ET E RROR U NLESS IT I S J UST B EING A S CRIV EN ER 'S ERROR, IF THE S CORE S HEET , THE RECAL CULA TION O F T HE SCO RE S HE ET I S G OI NG T O R ESULT I N --.

JUSTICE: THAT'S THE REASON I ASK Y OU WHA T T HE T HIRD D IS TRIC T ORD ER ED , AND I THO UG HT Y OU SAI D T HAT THE THI RD DISTRIC T O RD ERED T HA T T HE RE B E A R ED UCTI ON O F 4 0 P OINTS . THA T I S E XACT LY COR RE CT . JUSTI CE : AND THE SCO RE S HEET R EC ALCU LATE D THE R EDUCTI ON AND THE N OBV IOUS LY T HA T W OULD IMP LI CATE O TH ER S ENTENCING S TATU TE S , B UT I D ON'T K NO W WHY T HE STATE W OULD GET T O P UT O N A DDIT IONA L E VI DENC E I N THA T C IRCU MS TANCE, Y OU K NO W , W HA T S ENSE IT W OULD MAK E O R W HA T S EN SE I T W OULD M AK E T HAT T HE D EF ENDANT W OULD G ET T O D O A NYTHING D IFFE RENT LY . > > ONL Y B ECAU SE T HE S ENTE NC E G OT, THE S ENTE NC E WAS V ACAT ED , A ND ALT HOUG H T HI S WAS J US T FOR BEC AU SE O F THE C ORRECTION OF T HE S EN TENC IN G , T HE SEN TENC IN G POI NT S , THE F AC T IS T HAT T HE S EN TE NCE WAS VACATED , AND I N ORD ER T O I MPOS E A N EW SEN TENC E , T HE Y NEE DE D T O H AV E BEE N A NOTH ER S ENTENCIN G HEARING, B UT THE FACT THA T W E G OT A NEW SENTE NCING HEA RI NG D OE S NOT E NTITLE T HE D EFEN DA NT T O T HE BEN EFIT OF CAS E L AW T HA T W AS  D ECIDED A FT ER HIS CONVI CTIO N B ECAM E FIN AL T HA T HAS BEE N H ELD N OT T O A PPLY RET ROAC TIVELY . IN T HI S C AS E , ALF ON SO G REEN , A CAS E T HA T T HE PET IT IO NE R C IT ES , S UPPO RT S T HE A RGUM EN T T HAT THI S COU RT H AS I MPLICI TLY A PP LIED B LAKE LY O R MOR E S PE CI FI CALLY APP RENDI T O A RES EN TENC IN G .

JUSTI CE : I T HINK M Y T ROUBLE W IT H T HI S W HOLE S IT UATION I S T HA T F RO M W HAT I HAV E R EA D , T HA T WHA T T HI S CAS E I S D EA LI NG W IT H I S NOT , T HA T T HE T HIRD D IS TRIC T WHE N I T ORD ER ED RES EN TENC IN G D IDN'T ORDER THAT THE RE B E ANY THIN G F AC TU ALLY F URTH ER D ETERMI NED . I T M ER EL Y W AN TE D THE L EG AL APP LICATION O F T HE S EN TENC E T O B E REC ALCU LATE D. I S THA T C OR RECT ?

JUS TICE W ELLS , I U NDERST AN D YOUR Q UE STION , AND I THINK THAT YOU ARE C ORRECT , BUT WHE N THE Y W EN T B ACK , THE Y DID , I N F AC T , H AVE A NOTH ER S EN TENC IN G H EARI NG.

J USTICE: LET ME A SK Y OU THIS IN A CAS E D EC ID ED A FTER A PPRENDI I F I T WER E A D IREC T A PP EA L , A ND T HE JUD GE I MPOSED P OI NTS F OR P ENET RA TION T HE J UR Y DID N' T F IN D IT AND T HA T W EN T O N APPEAL, WHAT I S THE S TATE 'S POSITION AS TO WHAT T HE REM EDY WOULD B E I F A PP RE ND I W ERE VIO LA TE D?

I T HINK I T DEP ENDS ON WHETHER OR N OT F IR ST O F A LL IT W OU LD HAV E T O H AV E B EE N P RESERV ED IN T HE T RIAL COURT.

JUSTICE: YES, LET 'S A SSUME ALL OF THAT.

IF I T W AS P RO PE RL Y P RESERVED T HEN THERE ARE T WO THINGS THAT COULD HAP PE N AND I'M NOT SURE WHICH WOU LD HAPPEN. E ITHER , I T I S T RE ATED A S T HE C ASE W HERE A N I SS UE W AS P RESENTED T O THE JUR Y BUT THERE WAS N O S PE CI FI C F INDING B Y THE J UR Y , S O S OMETIMES IT W OU LD G O A S I N P ER HAPS THE J UR Y INS TR UCTI ON AND T HEN THAT WOU LD P RO BABL Y H AVE TO G O BAC K T O R ET RIAL , O R YOU WOU LD JUS T HAV E T O , T HE DEF EN DANT I N T HAT C AS E M IGHT J US T GET T HOSE POI NT S D EDUCTED FROM THE SEN TENC E.

JUSTICE: WHICH O NE W OULD IT BE? CAN Y OU I MPAN EL A JUR Y A T T HAT P OINT SOL EL Y F OR