STEVE MCGRATH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A youthful offender appeals his sentence imposed after revocation of community control, arguing he should have been sentenced under the new sentencing guidelines. The court affirms, holding that the amendments to the sentencing rules eliminating the exception for youthful offenders do not apply retroactively to offenses committed before the amendment's effective date.
The appellant was not entitled to be sentenced under the guidelines. The amended Rule 3.701(d)(14) requiring compliance with guidelines for sentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control does not apply retroactively to sentences imposed before its July 1, 1984 effective date.
[1] Committee notes to rules of criminal procedure are regarded as persuasive and are adopted as part of the rule.
[2] Sentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control must be in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Sentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control must be in accordance with the guidelines. The sentence imposed after revocation of probation may be included within the original cell (guidelines range) or may be increased to the next higher cell (guidelines range) without requiring a reason for departure.”
States the new amendment to Rule 3.701(d)(14) requiring guideline compliance for sentences after probation/community control revocation, effective July 1, 1984
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 7, 1983, McGrath pled guilty to violating community control and the trial court revoked his community control. At the time of sentencing, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Youthful Offender Act Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant, a youthful offender, appeals his sentence imposed subsequent to the revocation of community control. He raises as error the trial court’s refusal to sentence him in accordance with the new sentencing guidelines. Rule 3.701, F.R. Crim.P. We affirm.
On December 7, 1983, appellant pled guilty to violating community control and the court revoked his community control. He sought to be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines, which became effective October 1,1983, but the trial court declined. At the time of sentencing, the committee note to Rule 3.701(d)(ll) provided that sentences under the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act need not conform to the guidelines. We stated that the committee notes would be regarded as persuasive in Dug-gar v. State, 446 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The Florida Supreme Court has now made it clear that committee notes are adopted as a part of the rule. The Florida Bar: Amendment to Rules of Criminal Procedure (3.701, 3.988 — Sentencing Guidelines), 451 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1984).
However, during the pendency of this appeal, Rule 3.701 and the committee notes were amended. See The Florida Bar: Amendment to Rules of Criminal Procedure, supra. The effective date of these amendments is July 1, 1984. Ch. 84-328, Laws of Florida (1984). In the amended version of the committee note to Rule 3.701(d)(ll) the language to the effect that sentences under the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act need not conform to the guidelines was deleted. A new provision to subsection (d) of Rule 3.701 was added, which states:
Sentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control must be in accordance with the guidelines. The sentence imposed after revocation of probation may be included within the original cell (guidelines range) or may be increased to the next higher cell (guidelines range) without requiring a reason for departure.
See Rule 3.701(d)(14), F.R.Crim.P. We held in Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), that a probationer who was sentenced for violation of his probation subsequent to October 1, 1983, was entitled to be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines, but that the amended Rule 3.701(d)(14) would not apply should the probationer be sentenced subsequent to July 1, 1984, the effective date of the amendments. Applying the same rule — i.e., that the par ticular amendment under consideration here has no retroactive effect — we hold that appellant was and is not entitled to be sentenced under the guidelines.
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…DCA 1984); Duggar v. State, 446 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Boyett v. State, 452 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Harrington v. State, 455 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Knight v. State, 455 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); McGrath v. State, 454 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Hernandez v. State, 456 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ratlin v. State, 455 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Multiple score sheets are impermissible Vileta v. State, 454 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Written statement no…
-
Dorman v. State, 457 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…be considered as a candidate for treatment as a mentally disordered sex offender. Once an offender is determined to be such a candidate, rule 3.701 is not applicable. See Sweat v. State, 454 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); and cf. McGrath v. State, 454 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Consequently, appellant will be eligible for parole consideration. MILLS, J., concurs. SHIVERS, J., dissents with written opinion.…1 / 2
-
E.W. v. State, 469 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…egislature. At the time of sentencing, the committee note to Rule 3.701(d)(ll) provided that sentences under the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act need not conform to the guidelines. The committee note was a part of the rule. McGrath v. State, 454 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). [*915] Appellant’s argument that the effective date of the change was May 8,1984, when the Supreme Court of Florida revised the rule and deleted the above provision of the committee note, is incorrect because the revision was on…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Fla. BAR: Amendment to Rules of Crim. Procedure (3.701, 451 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1984)
- Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Duggar v. State, 446 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)