RICARLO A. BETTY, Appellant,
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
St. Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No.
Ricarlo A. Betty, Arcadia, pro se.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
A. Betty ("Appellant") appeals the order denying
his motion to set a hearing date for the de novo
sentencing hearing granted as post-conviction relief. Because
the original sentencing judge summarily and improperly found
a de novo sentencing hearing "unnecessary"
after a different trial court judge ruled such relief was
warranted, we reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing
before a different judge.
2008, Appellant was convicted after trial of two counts of
robbery with a deadly weapon while masked and was sentenced
to life in prison on each count. Appellant's judgment and
sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Betty v.
State, 22 So.3d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
2011, Appellant moved for post-conviction relief raising
several grounds. The motion was heard by a judge who did not
preside over the trial and sentencing. The trial court denied
post-conviction relief except for one ground, in which
Appellant asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for
failure to advise Appellant of his youthful offender
eligibility and argue for a youthful offender sentence. The
trial court found sufficient prejudice on that ground to
grant Appellant a de novo sentencing hearing in
front of the original sentencing judge to enable that judge
to consider whether Appellant should be classified and
sentenced as a youthful offender. The written order granting
The parties may contact the sentencing judge for hearing time
at a mutually convenient time and/or file an appeal
within thirty days.
appealed the denial of post-conviction relief on the same
grounds for which relief was not granted, before seeking a
new sentencing hearing. This Court per curiam
affirmed the denial as to those grounds. Betty v.
State, 138 So.3d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
his post-conviction relief appeal was resolved, Appellant
filed a pro se motion to set a hearing date for the
de novo sentencing hearing granted in the trial
court's 2011 order. Appellant's motion for a de
novo sentencing was denied without a hearing by the
original sentencing court. The order denying the motion
stated, without any citation to authority, that the original
sentencing court "d[id] not believe" it had
jurisdiction to hold a sentencing hearing after Appellant
filed the appeal of the post-conviction order. Alternatively,
the original sentencing court found that even if it did have
jurisdiction, a de novo hearing was
"unnecessary, " reasoning that the original
sentencing court had presided over Appellant's trial and
sentencing and had reviewed the transcripts of both
proceedings, and that regardless of any possible youthful
offender argument trial counsel could make, the original
sentencing court would not have sentenced Appellant as a
youthful offender. The original sentencing court noted that
Appellant scored 13.9 years in prison with a minimum
mandatory of ten years, but that it had imposed two life
sentences on Appellant, attaching portions of the sentencing
transcript reflecting the sentence. Therefore, the original
sentencing court denied Appellant's motion for a de
novo resentencing hearing.
gave notice of appeal of the order denying a d ...