DOUGLAS A. STOUTE, 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.
Stoute appeals his probation revocation sentence, challenging the trial court's application of new sentencing guidelines that had not yet taken effect. The Fourth District reverses, holding that disadvantageous rule changes cannot be applied retroactively to a defendant sentenced before the rule's effective date.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that disadvantageous rule changes do not have retrospective application and cannot be applied to defendants sentenced before the rule's effective date. The trial court must resentence Stoute in accordance with the sentencing rules that were in effect at the time of his original sentencing.
[1] A rule change in sentencing guidelines that is disadvantageous to a criminal defendant does not have retrospective application.
[2] A trial court may not apply a new sentencing guideline that increases a sentence before the effective date of that guideline.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A rule change that is disadvantageous to the criminal defendant does not have retrospective application.”
Establishes the core principle that disadvantageous sentencing guideline changes cannot be applied retroactively
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStoute was placed on three-year probation for hashish delivery in February 1983. In September 1983, the state charged him with probation violation bas…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the sentence rendered in connection with revocation of appellant’s probation. We reverse and remand with instructions.
Appellant was placed on three years’ probation for delivery of hashish in February, 1983. The state charged him with violation of probation in September, 1983, by sexual batteries on several children and failure to attend drug and alcohol programs. The trial court found that appellant violated his probation with respect to some of the batteries and his failure to attend the above programs. Accordingly, it revoked probation, and adjudicated appellant guilty of the charge of delivering hashish. At the sentencing hearing, it explained to defense counsel that under the new sentencing guidelines it could increase the sentence one cell from what it would otherwise have been; and did so.
While it is true that the new guidelines do allow a one-cell increase where violation of probation is involved, this rule was not effective until July 1, 1984. 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, in accordance with the pertinent rule in effect at the time of sentence, enter in writing its reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines.
LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
I would approve the trial court’s action in going outside the guidelines on the basis that the appellant violated the conditions of his probation. While it is true that the rules have now been formally amended to provide for probation violations, I do not think that amendment means that trial courts could not previously consider the violation as a sufficient reason to deviate from the guidelines.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hanabury v. State, 459 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Bibby v. State, 465 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)