JOHNNY NEWSOME, 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.
Johnny Newsome appealed his sentence imposed under Florida's sentencing guidelines, arguing he did not knowingly waive his parole eligibility and that the trial court improperly imposed the maximum statutory penalty without first determining the presumptive guidelines sentence. The court rejected his first argument but agreed with his second, vacating and remanding for resentencing.
An affirmative election to be sentenced under the guidelines need only be affirmatively represented in the record without requiring a knowing and intelligent waiver or inquiry regarding parole eligibility loss. However, the trial court erred by sentencing to the maximum statutory penalty without first determining the presumptive guidelines sentence.
[1] An election to be sentenced under the guidelines need only be affirmatively represented in the record, and it is not necessary to demonstrate that the election was knowin…
[2] A trial court must determine the presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines before deciding whether to depart from the 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“An election to be sentenced under the guidelines need only be affirmatively represented in the record. It is not necessary to demonstrate that the election was knowingly and intelligently made or that the trial judge inquired as to whether a defendant knew that by being sentenced under the guidelines he would lose his eligibility for parole.”
Establishes the standard for electing guidelines sentencing—affirmative representation suffices without requiring knowing and intelligent waiver
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNewsome was sentenced under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 (the sentencing guidelines). Defense counsel made an affirmative election for gui…
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 Affirmative Selection For Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
The following opinion which was substituted for the original opinion of March 29, 1985 in Newsome v. State, 466 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985) by order of this court of April 15, 1985 is hereby substituted for the opinion appearing in the Southern Reporter at the above citation. GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a sentence imposed under the sentencing guidelines, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701.
Appellant argues that he did not affirmatively select to be sentenced under the guidelines because the record does not show that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to parole eligibility.
We find this contention to be without merit. An election to be sentenced under the guidelines need only be affirmatively represented in the record. It is not necessary to demonstrate that the election was knowingly and intelligently made or that the trial judge inquired as to whether a defendant knew that by being sentenced under the guidelines he would lose his eligibility for parole. Moore v. State, 455 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Kiser v. State, 455 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Gage v. State, 461 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) [question certified]. In this case, the record indicates that defense counsel made an affirmative selection. This selection was binding on the appellant. See Moore v. State.
Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum statutory penalty without a determination of the presumptive guidelines sentence.
We agree. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 contemplates that a scoresheet will be prepared for each defendant who is to be sentenced. This court has held that a trial court must determine the presumptive sentence under the guidelines before deciding whether to depart from the guidelines. Doby v. State, 461 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In this case, the record on appeal does not contain a sentencing guidelines scoresheet. There is also nothing in the transcript of the sentencing hearing to indicate that the trial judge knew appellant’s presumptive sentence before sentencing him outside the guidelines to the maximum sentence permitted by law.
Accordingly, appellant’s sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for resentencing.
SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newsome v. State, 473 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
-
Senczyszyn v. State, 467 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
-
Lawrence v. State, 470 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
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
- Moore v. State, 455 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Doby v. State, 461 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Kiser v. State, 455 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Gage v. State, 461 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Newsome v. State, 473 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)