FREDDIE FORD, 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.
Freddie Ford appealed his sentences for probation revocation, arguing the trial court failed to follow sentencing guidelines procedures by imposing sentences without determining his presumptive guidelines sentence. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing because the trial judge lacked the required guidelines scoresheet and presumptive sentence information.
The trial court erred by attempting to depart from the guidelines without first determining the presumptive sentence through a completed guidelines scoresheet. Such departure violates Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 and undermines the purpose of the guidelines to promote sentencing uniformity.
[1] A trial court must determine the presumptive sentence under sentencing guidelines before deciding whether to depart from those guidelines.
[2] Sentencing a defendant without the benefit of a guidelines scoresheet, which would provide a presumptive sentence, is improper.
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“[W]hen a trial court disregards the guidelines and imposes a sentence which exceeds the presumptive guidelines sentence, it would seem illogical to conclude that the court gave clear and convincing reasons for departing from the guidelines under rule 3.701d.ll.”
Establishes the core legal principle that a court cannot properly depart from guidelines without first knowing the presumptive sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord was sentenced for probation revocation on charges of aggravated assault, attempted sexual battery, and sexual battery. The trial court departed f…
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 Presumptive Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
In Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), this court said:
[W]hen a trial court disregards the guidelines and imposes a sentence which exceeds the presumptive guidelines sentence, it would seem illogical to conclude that the court gave clear and convincing reasons for departing from the guidelines under rule 3.701d.ll. We could not conclude that a court properly departed from the guidelines when the court had nothing under consideration from which to depart. Under those circumstances the purpose of the guidelines — to promote uniformity of sentencing by the trial courts of similarly situated defendants — would be not only not furthered but would be thwarted.
We further said in Doby v. State, 461 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984): The trial court did not follow the procedures set forth in the sentencing guidelines. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701d. The court sentenced the defendant to the maximum sentences without the benefit of a guidelines scoresheet which would have provided a presumptive sentence. The court announced what purported to be reasons for departing from the guidelines. But, not knowing the presumptive sentences under the guidelines, the court was without sufficient information to decide whether to depart from the guidelines.
Finally, in Newsome v. State, 473 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), this court stated:
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. [Citations omitted.] 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.
In the case before us, the facts are the same as in Myrick, Doby, and Newsome —the trial judge attempted to depart from the guidelines and sentenced defendant “without the benefit of a guidelines score-sheet which would have provided a presumptive sentence.” Doby. Additionally, as in Rasul v. State, 465 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), counsel never informed the trial judge of defendant’s presumptive sentence. Thus, absence of the guidelines scoresheet in the record is not irrelevant here as it was in Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), where, even though no scoresheet was in the record, the guidelines were properly considered since the trial court had been advised of the presumptive sentence. Therefore, because the error here is the same as that in Myr-ick, Doby, Rasul, and Newsome, we vacate defendant’s sentences imposed at his probation revocation for aggravated assault, attempted sexual battery, and sexual battery and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Duffer, 509 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…d on appeal is harmless error because one was prepared and presented to the trial judge for his consideration at sentencing. See Percival v. State, 506 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Whistin v. State, 500 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Ford v. State, 474 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1985). For the reasons stated below, we agree that the reasons cited by the trial court to support the downward departure are not clear and convinc…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Doby v. State, 461 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Newsome v. State, 473 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Natal Rasul v. State, 465 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)