HORACE BARNES, 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.
The court held that the sentencing guidelines could not be applied to an offense committed before October 1, 1983, unless the defendant affirmatively selected to be sentenced under the guidelines. The court also held that the trial court erred in revoking probation without adequately inquiring into the defendant's desire to discharge counsel.
Appellant was found to have violated probation and was sentenced for escape under the sentencing guidelines. The underlying offense occurred before th…
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 Discharge Of Court-Appointed Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant seeks review of the order revoking his probation and the resulting sentence for escape which was imposed under the sentencing guidelines.
We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court failed to adequately inquire into the reasons for his desire to discharge court-appointed counsel. Therefore, we affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation.
Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him under the sentencing guidelines. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701. We agree. The underlying offense in this case was committed on May 16, 1982. The sentencing guidelines may be applied to crimes when the offense occurred prior to October 1, 1983, only where the defendant affirmatively selects to be sentenced under the guidelines. § 921.-001(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983); In Re Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines), 439 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1983); Rodriguez v. State, 458 So. 2d 899 (Fla.2d DCA 1984); Jordan v. State, 460 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Here, the record does not indicate that the appellant affirmatively selected to be sentenced under the guidelines. A defendant’s mere silence at sentencing cannot meet the affirmative selection requirement contemplated by rule 3.701. Rodriguez v. State.
Appellant need not be resentenced since he received the maximum statutory penalty of fifteen years imprisonment and escape is not an offense over which the trial court could retain jurisdiction. See § 947.16(3), Fla.Stat. (1983). Accordingly, the case is remanded with directions to correct the record to reflect that appellant was not sentenced under the guidelines.
SCHOONOVER, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.), J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tillman v. State, 466 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…cing since the court obviously intended to impose the maximum penalties permitted by law. Accordingly, the cause is remanded with directions to correct the record to reflect that appellant was not sentenced under the guidelines. See Barnes v. State, 464 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Rules of Criminal Procedure (sentencing Guidelines), 439 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1983)
- Jordan v. State, 460 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Rodriguez v. State, 458 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)