Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

630 So. 2d 534

Docket No. 81592.

Williams v. State

Wallace L. WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided November 24, 1993.

Rehearing Denied January 28, 1994.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1993-11-24

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 2003

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“under Article I, Section 17 of the Florida Constitution or”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 721 So. 2d 363 - Gibson v. State

Relies on 630 So. 2d 521 - Hale v. State · Williams v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-11-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Chief, Appellate Div. and Glen P. Gifford, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Charlie McCoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We have for review Williams v. State,614 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: "Does article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution permit an appellate court to undertake proportionality review of a non-death penalty sentence?" Id. at 1109. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We approve in part and quash in part the district court's decision.

¶5While we find no error in the district court's affirmance of petitioner's conviction or its reversal of his sentence with a remand for resentencing, we quash that portion of the district court's decision which held that there can be no "proportionality review" of criminal penalties other than death under article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution. 614 So.2d at 1109. On the authority of Hale v. State,630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993), we hold that there can be such review in a proper case. In view of the fact that the district court reversed petitioner's sentence and remanded for resentencing, we find it unnecessary to reach petitioner's argument that his sentence constituted "cruel or unusual punishment" under article I, section 17. We remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶6It is so ordered.

¶7BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

/630/so2d/534 · .json · Public domain