JEANNE CARTER YOHN, A/K/A JEANNE CARTER LAKE, 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.
Defendant Jeanne Carter Yohn appeals her sentences imposed under Florida sentencing guidelines, challenging the trial court's scoresheet calculation and the credit applied for pre-sentence incarceration. The appellate court found the scoresheet was computed incorrectly, resulting in a sentence exceeding the proper guidelines range, and reversed for resentencing.
The trial court erred in computing the scoresheet total as thirty-eight points when it should have been thirty-four points. The correct score supported only a non-state prison sanction, not concurrent terms of imprisonment. The trial court's application of credit for pre-sentence incarceration was proper under the statute since defendant was charged at different times for the offenses.
[1] A sentence imposed under the sentencing guidelines is erroneous if the scoresheet used for computation is incorrect, leading to a sentence outside the recommended range.
[2] A trial court's stated intention to depart from sentencing guidelines is insufficient to justify a departure sentence when the record does not support the departure.
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“the trial court's completed guidelines scoresheet showed a total of thirty-eight points, which would have resulted in a sentence of community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration. Defendant contends, and the state agrees, that the total score should have been only thirty-four points.”
Establishes the factual basis for the appellate court's finding of error in the scoresheet computation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn December 1981, defendant was placed on probation for grand theft. In November 1983, a probation violation affidavit was filed. Between December 198…
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Defendant appeals her sentences imposed pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701.
In December 1981 the trial court placed defendant on probation for three years for the offense of grand theft. On November 15, 1983, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed against defendant. Thereafter, from December 1983 to January 1984, numerous informations were filed charging defendant with five counts of grand theft and two counts of obtaining property by worthless checks. Defendant pled nolo contendere to all the above charges and came before the court for adjudication and sentencing on March 8,1984. The court adjudicated defendant guilty of all charges and sentenced her under the guidelines to concurrent two and one-half year terms of imprisonment.
Defendant argues that the score-sheet used by the court was computed incorrectly. This incorrect computation, defendant contends, resulted in a sentence in excess of the correct recommended guidelines range. We agree.
The trial court’s completed guidelines scoresheet showed a total of thirty-eight points, which would have resulted in a sentence of community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration. Defendant contends, and the state agrees, that the total score should have been only thirty-four points. This would result in a sentence of “any non-state prison sanction.” Thus, the court erred in sentencing defendant to concurrent two and one-half year terms of imprisonment.
The state argues that we should nevertheless affirm defendant’s sentences, because the trial court intended to depart from the guidelines due to defendant’s violation of probation. The record does not support this argument and, in fact, the judge even stated that “the [cjourt does not intend to sentence her to the maximum, but intends to sentence her in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.”
Finally, we note that the trial court applied a credit ranging from forty-three to 128 days against each of the defendant’s sentences for the time she spent in county jail before sentencing. Defendant relies on Blackwell v. State, 449 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Martin v. State, 452 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), in arguing that the court should have awarded the maximum credit of 128 days against each sentence, since they were all to run concurrently. Contrary to the state’s position, defendant can raise this point on direct appeal and is not limited to seeking correction through a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Crimi nal Procedure 3.850. Polk v. State, 418 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Nevertheless, defendant’s reliance on Blackwell and Martin is misplaced. Those cases are distinguishable in that each involved credit time against concurrent sentences resulting from incarceration on multiple charges. Here, however, defendant was charged at different times with a series of offenses for which she was incarcerated. See § 921.-161(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). Cf. Shepard v. State, 459 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Green v. State, 450 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Amlotte v. State, 435 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), aff'd on other grounds, 456 So. 2d 448 (Fla.1984); Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
Accordingly, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the guidelines in effect on March 8, 1984, see Vileta v. State, 454 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), with her score to be computed in accordance with our opinion.
DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…lly served in each case. In his motion he claimed entitlement to credit on all of his sentences equivalent to the greatest amount of presentence time served for any one of them.1 The court refused to grant the requested relief, citing Yohn v. State, 461 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The question presented by this appeal is whether Yohn was overruled sub silentio by the supreme court in Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986). In sentencing the defendant in Yohn, the court applied credit time ranging fro…
-
Whitney v. State, 493 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…, 492 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). However, we find that, under the circumstances of this case, Whitney is not entitled to have his jail-time credit applied equally to the concurrent sentences imposed below by the trial court. In Yohn v. State, 461 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the defendant received three years probation in December 1981. She violated her probation in November 1983 and was charged with other crimes by numerous informations filed between December 1983 and January 1984. She was sentenced…
-
State v. Tripp, 591 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…to jail credit for presen-tence imprisonment when a defendant receives consecutive sentences of imprisonment. § 921.161, Fla.Stat. (1987); Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986); Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Yohn v. State, 461 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA [*1057] 1984); Martin v. State, 452 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). It is well established that a “defendant ‘is not entitled to have his jail time credit pyramided by being given credi…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amlotte v. State, 456 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1984)
- Martin v. State, 452 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Hunter v. State, 435 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Winston v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Vileta v. State, 454 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Polk v. State, 418 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Buford A. Green v. State, 450 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Shepard v. State, 459 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Blackwell v. State, 449 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)