WILLIAM BIBBY, 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.
Trial court erred in enhancing defendant's sentence under sentencing guidelines without stating reasons, relying on a rule not yet in effect; reversed and remanded for written explanation of departure.
Sentencing guideline amendments do not have retrospective application, and a trial court cannot enhance a sentence based on a rule that was not yet effective at the time of sentencing.
[1] Amendments to sentencing guidelines do not have retrospective application and cannot be used to justify sentence enhancements imposed prior to the amendment's effective d…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBibby was sentenced one cell higher than recommended by sentencing guidelines after the trial court found he violated probation conditions. The court …
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 Retrospective Application cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue is whether the trial court erred by enhancing the defendant’s sentence, under the sentencing guidelines, without enunciating the reasons for doing so. We find error and reverse on the authority of our recent decision in Hanabury v. State, 459 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
The trial court imposed a sentence one cell higher than that recommended by the sentencing guidelines after finding that Bibby had violated the conditions of his probation. The court did not state any reason for this action because it believed that Rule 3.701(d)(14), Fla.R.Crim.P., which would have justified such an increase, was in effect. In fact, however, the rule did not take effect until several months after the court’s action. In Hanabury, supra, we held that amendments to the sentencing guidelines do not have retrospective application. We adhere to our position and hold that Rule 3.701(d)(14), Fla.R.Crim.P., could not be utilized to enhance a sentence imposed prior to the rule’s effective date. See also Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Hendrix v. State, 455 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause with instructions that the trial court enter a written explication of its reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines.
DOWNEY, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arnett v. State, 471 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…per reason for enhancing appellant’s sentence, or that the rule change is a bad idea. We say only that the rule change disadvantages the offender, and therefore may not be applied retroactively. The instant case is on all fours with Bibby v. State, 465 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). There this court held that the trial court had incorrectly applied the rule amendment retrospectively. Accordingly, the enhanced sentence was reversed and remanded, with instructions that the trial court explicate in writing its…
-
Stoute v. State, 467 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…984. Appellant’s probation was found to have been violated in September, 1983, and he was sentenced in March, 1984. A rule change that is disadvantageous to the criminal defendant does not have retrospective application. . See, e.g., Bibby v. State, 465 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Hanabury v. State, 459 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Here, as in Bibby, the trial court applied the rule change before the change became effective. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court,…
Authorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Hendrix v. State, 455 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Hanabury v. State, 459 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)