LINDA PETE, A/K/A LINDA L. THOMAS, 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.
Linda Pete was sentenced for drug delivery charges to 30 months imprisonment plus 15 years probation, exceeding the 12-30 month guideline range applicable at the time of her crimes. The court reversed her sentence, finding the trial court improperly applied an amended sentencing guideline rule that became effective after her crimes were committed.
The trial court improperly applied the amended rule retroactively. Rule changes with disadvantageous effects on offenders do not apply to crimes committed before the rule's effective date. The sentence must be reimposed under the guidelines in effect when the crimes were committed, either within the presumptive range or with clear and convincing reasons stated in writing.
[1] A rule change that has a disadvantageous effect on an offender does not apply to crimes committed before the effective date of the rule change.
[2] A trial court errs by applying sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing instead of those in effect at the time of the crime, thereby applying the amendme…
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“A rule change that has a disadvantageous effect on an offender does not apply to crimes committed before the effective date of the rule change.”
Establishes the core legal principle prohibiting retroactive application of unfavorable rule changes to prior offenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBetween December 21, 1983, and April 12, 1984, Pete was charged with multiple counts of drug delivery and possession. She pleaded guilty to delivery c…
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 Retroactive Application Of Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Between December 21, 1983, and April 12, 1984, appellant was charged with multiple counts of delivery and possession of drugs. On May 29, 1984, appellant entered pleas of guilty to each of the drug delivery charges and the state nol-prossed the possession charges.
Appellant was sentenced on July 13, 1984, to thirty months’ imprisonment on one case and fifteen years’ probation to run concurrently on each of the other cases. At the time appellant committed her crimes, the guidelines recommended a sentence in the range of twelve to thirty months’ imprisonment.
Appellant appeals her sentence contending that the trial court based its sentence on an amendment to Rule 3.701(d)(12), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which became effective on July 1, 1984. Appellant asserts that the amended rule was retroactively applied.
We find appellant’s position to be correct. At the time she committed the crimes, Rule 3.701(d)(12) provided that even though separate sentences should be imposed for each offense, the total sentence cannot exceed the guidelines without written explanation.
In this case the maximum guideline range for appellant’s offenses was thirty months’ incarceration. Appellant’s total sentence of thirty months’ incarceration plus fifteen years’ probation exceeds that range. Had the trial judge listed the reasons for departure from the guideline range, appellant’s sentence may have been permissible under the applicable rule. However, no such reasons were given by the trial court.
Inasmuch as the amended rule, which became effective on July 1,1984, allows the total sanction to exceed the maximum guideline range up to the term provided by general law, it appears that the trial court sentenced appellant under the amended rule. Thus, the trial court applied the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing instead of those in effect at the time of the crime and thereby applied the amendment retroactively. A rule change that has a disadvantageous effect on an offender does not apply to crimes committed before the effective date of the rule change. Davis v. State, 480 So. 2d 672 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Miller v. State, 468 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines rule in effect when the crimes were committed. On remand the trial judge may either sentence appellant within the presumptive range or depart therefrom for clear and convincing reasons which should be stated in writing.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pete, 493 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1986)…[*451] ADKINS, Justice. We have for review Pete v. State, 478 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), in which the district court held that the trial court had improperly applied the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing rather than those in force at the time of the offense. The decision conflicts with our dec…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. State, 468 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Davis v. State, 480 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Weber v. NEW Hampshire Ins. Co., 480 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)