RAY VINCENT 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.
Ray Vincent Thomas appeals his revocation of probation and guidelines sentence for battery on a police officer. The court affirms the probation revocation but reverses the guidelines sentence, finding that because his original offense predated the guidelines effective date, he was not entitled to be sentenced under the guidelines without affirmatively selecting to do so.
The court affirms the revocation of probation because there was evidence that Thomas committed crimes during the probationary period. However, the court reverses the guidelines sentence for the original offense because crimes committed prior to October 1, 1983, are subject to the guidelines only if the defendant affirmatively selects them, and mere silence at sentencing does not constitute an affirmative selection.
[1] Probation may be revoked upon evidence that the defendant committed a crime during the probationary period.
[2] Sentencing under the guidelines is applicable to crimes committed prior to October 1, 1983, only if the defendant affirmatively selects to be sentenced under them.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“there must be a clear and unequivocal choice made on the record”
Establishes the standard for affirmative selection to be sentenced under guidelines; mere silence is insufficient
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas was convicted of battery on a police officer and placed on two years' probation on September 19, 1983. On December 5, 1983, he was arrested for…
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
HALL, Judge.
Ray Vincent Thomas appeals his guidelines sentence and the revocation of his probation. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellant was convicted of battery on a police officer and placed on two years’ probation on September 19, 1983. On December 5, 1983, he was arrested for aggravated assault, battery on a police officer, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, carrying a concealed firearm, and resisting arrest with violence. He was ultimately convicted and sentenced to sixty days for assault and one year for resisting arrest without violence. Appellant’s probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment for his original offense. All of his sentences were to run concurrently.
Appellant contends that his probation was improperly revoked because there was no evidence that he committed a crime during his probationary period. We do not agree.
Appellant argues as his second point on appeal that his sentence under the guidelines was error. He contends that his original offense was committed prior to the effective date of the guidelines and that he did not affirmatively select to be sentenced within the guidelines. We agree.
Section 921.001(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that crimes committed prior to October 1, 1983, are subject to the sentencing guidelines only if the defendant affirmatively selects to be sentenced under them. In Re Rules of Criminal Procedure, 439 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1983). Mere silence at sentencing is not an affirmative selection. Kimsey v. State, 467 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Rather, “there must be a clear and unequivocal choice made on the record.” Jordan v. State, 460 So. 2d 477, 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The record in this case reveals no such affirmative choice by appellant. Consequently, the trial court erred in sentencing him under the guidelines for his original offense.
Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentence for the original offense of battery on a police officer and remand for resentencing. Appellant may then affirmatively select to be sentenced under the guidelines.1 If he does not, the trial court must sentence appellant according to the laws in effect prior to the adoption of the guidelines. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. . A defendant placed on probation before October 1, 1983, is entitled to be sentenced under the guidelines upon revocation of his probation after October 1, 1983. State v. Boyett, 467 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shaw v. State, 63 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…1134, 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (reversing and remanding for resentencing to afford appellant opportunity to elect preferred sentencing procedure since there was no discussion in trial court regarding election under 1983 guidelines); Thomas v. State, 479 So. 2d 820, 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (explaining that mere silence at sentencing is not affirmative election to be sentenced under 1983 guidelines; rather, there must be a clear and unequivocal choice made on record). Nor can we determine if a departure sentence…
Authorities Cited
- In re Rules of Criminal Procedure (sentencing Guidelines), 439 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1983)
- Jordan v. State, 460 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- State v. Coye Elliott Boyett, 467 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1985)
- Kimsey v. State, 467 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)