McLean v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

McLean v. State

767 So. 2d 441, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 636, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1734, 2000 WL 1205926

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 2000

DocketNo. SC95949

StatusPublished

This text of 767 So. 2d 441 (McLean v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McLean v. State, 767 So. 2d 441, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 636, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1734, 2000 WL 1205926 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have for review McLean v. State, 732 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) wherein the First District Court of Appeal cited to Locke v. State, 719 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), approved, 760 So.2d 148 (Fla.2000), which was then pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

Consistent with our decision in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000) (approving Locke), we determine that McLean’s un-preserved claim relating to the trial court’s failure to announce the imposition of restitution at his sentencing hearing and to advise him of the right to have a hearing on the amount of restitution does not rise to the level of fundamental error which may be reviewed for the first time on direct appeal. Further, based on our decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), we quash the district court’s afflr-manee of McLean’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in effect before the relevant amendments made to chapter 95-184 became effective.¹

It is so ordered.

SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We have for review McLean v. State, 732 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) wherein the First District Court of Appeal cited to Locke v. State, 719 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), approved, 760 So.2d 148 (Fla.2000), which was then pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

Consistent with our decision in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000) (approving Locke), we determine that McLean’s un-preserved claim relating to the trial court’s failure to announce the imposition of restitution at his sentencing hearing and to advise him of the right to have a hearing on the amount of restitution does not rise to the level of fundamental error which may be reviewed for the first time on direct appeal. Further, based on our decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), we quash the district court’s afflr-manee of McLean’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in effect before the relevant amendments made to chapter 95-184 became effective.¹

It is so ordered.

SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

767 So. 2d 441, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 636, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1734, 2000 WL 1205926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclean-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack