Appeals Court rules man sentenced to 100 years for CP should be resentenced.

The Court in Florida’s Fifth District Court of appeals affirmed the conviction but remanded the sentence (before a different judge) of a man who was sentenced to 100 years for CP. The opinion in Berben v. State, came out this past Friday.

Berben was found guilty of twenty counts of knowingly possessing, controlling, or intentionally viewing images depicting child pornography. The trial court then imposed twenty consecutive five-year sentences for a total of 100 years.

“When imposing the sentence, the trial court made specific and unsubstantiated comments, concluding that Berben had actually distributed the pornographic images and further equating such conduct to actual, physical or sexual abuse of a minor… Further, the trial court saw “little difference in the culpability between those who actually sexually abuse and exploit children and those who encourage and promote conduct by downloading and sharing videos of such,” neither of which Berben was charged with.” As one of the concurring opinions mentioned, “Make no mistake, those who possess child pornography face lengthy prison sentences. However, they are not generally sentenced to life in prison.”

The other interesting part of this order was that the Judges took it upon themselves to make the correct legal argument on behalf of the Defendant. They note that the issue on which they were basing their decision on was not preserved or argued in the Appeal. However, they pointed out that an appellate court can address errors on it’s own volition if it is determined to be fundamental and is apparent on the face of the record.

 

 


Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

15 thoughts on “Appeals Court rules man sentenced to 100 years for CP should be resentenced.

  • April 17, 2019

    Just want to flag this for you, but my understanding is that the court did not decide the issue on Eighth Amendment grounds, and in fact rejected the 8A claim without much discussion.

    Doctrinally, I think this is important to realize because, at least in my understanding, there is nothing — conceptually — stopping the trial court that re-sentences him to giving him the exact same sentence so long as the judge avoids attributing conduct to the defendant that he did not engage in.

    Reply
    • April 17, 2019

      Thanks for the correction, Guy. The post has been updated. Appreciate you looking out.

      Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *