ANTHONY BOSTON, 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.
Boston challenges his sentencing for two separate burglary charges before different judges, arguing that both cases should have been sentenced using a single guidelines scoresheet under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1). The court found error in the trial court's use of separate scoresheets but affirmed the sentence because resentencing under current guidelines would likely result in a harsher sentence.
One scoresheet should have been used for both charges, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1), which mandates one guideline scoresheet for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. However, the error is harmless because resentencing under current guidelines would place the defendant in a recommended range exceeding the sentences already received.
[1] A single guideline scoresheet must be prepared for a defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing in a particular county.
[2] The trial court bears the responsibility to ensure that all of a defendant's cases pending for sentencing in a county at the time of the first sentencing hearing are disp…
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“one guideline scoresheet shall be prepared for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing”
This is the text of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1), the governing rule for scoresheet preparation in guideline sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoston was charged with burglary of a dwelling in two separate cases pending before different judges in Lee County. Judge Pack sentenced him to three …
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 Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
In each of two separate cases pending before two separate judges of the Circuit Court of Lee County, the defendant was charged with burglary of a dwelling. In one case, pending before Judge Wallace Paek, a guidelines scoresheet was prepared which produced a point total placing the defendant in the guideline range of two and one-half to three and one-half years. Judge Pack imposed a sentence of three years. The defendant has not appealed that sentence.
Three weeks after the imposition of sentence by Judge Pack, the defendant appeared before Judge Thomas S. Reese for sentencing in the other proceeding pending against him for burglary of a dwelling. At that time, defense counsel argued that Judge Reese should use the same guidelines scoresheet used by Judge Pack, in view of the provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1), which states that “one guideline scoresheet shall be prepared for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.”
Judge Reese disagreed with defense counsel’s argument and used a separate scoresheet, although a scoresheet which was identical to the scoresheet which had been used by Judge Pack. Judge Reese then imposed a sentence of three years to run consecutively to the sentence imposed by Judge Pack. The defendant appeals.
Although not explicitly stated by the defendant, we assume that at the time Judge Pack imposed sentence in the proceeding before him, the other charge against the defendant was pending for sentencing before Judge Reese. The state does not argue to the contrary. Under such circumstances, we agree with the defendant that one scoresheet should have been used. We are aware that the defendant apparently made no motion to consolidate the two cases for sentencing, but he did raise the point before Judge Reese. We agree with the decision of our sister court in Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), which addresses the situation presented in the instant case. In that case the court said “the Committee Note which makes the sentencing court responsible for the accurate preparation of scoresheets compels us to place the burden upon the trial court to assure that all of the defendant’s cases pending for sentencing in a particular county at the time of that defendant’s first sentencing hearing are disposed of using one scoresheet.” The Gallagher opinion clearly rejects the state’s argument in the instant case that the word “court” as used in rule 3.701(d)(1) should mean the division of the circuit court in which a particular case is pending for sentencing.
Having found error, we would be expected to reverse this case and remand for resentencing. However, upon resentencing the trial judge would be required to use a scoresheet prepared in accordance with the guidelines now in effect, not the guidelines in effect at the time sentence was originally imposed in this case. State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985). Since then, the guidelines have been amended and the defendant’s point total under the current guidelines would place him in a recommended range well in excess of the sum of the sentences which he has actually received from Judge Pack and Judge Reese. Therefore, under the circumstances, we find the error in this case harmless. See Bradley v. State, 480 So. 2d 647 (Fla.2d DCA 1985).
Affirmed.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Render v. State, 516 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…she was improperly sentenced and we agree. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1) provides that one guidelines scoresheet shall be prepared for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. In Boston v. State, 481 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), this court expressed its agreement with the proposition that the burden is upon the trial court to assure that all of the defendant’s cases pending for sentencing in a particular county at the time of that defendant’s first sente…
-
Parker v. State, 506 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…rom a recommended guidelines sentence because a defendant is a habitual offender. Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). As a defendant must be sentenced according to the guidelines in effect at the time of resentencing, see Boston v. State, 481 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), at resentenc-ing, appellant’s status as a habitual offender may not be used as a reason to depart from the sentence recommended by the guidelines. Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing. SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.…
-
Hagins v. State, 509 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…85) (the burden is “upon the trial court to assure that all of a defendant’s cases pending for sentencing in a particular county at the time of that defendant’s first sentencing hearing are disposed of using one scoresheet”); accord Boston v. State, 481 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, because the trial court in the instant case used more than one score-sheet in sentencing the appellant for all of the offenses pending for sentencing in Lee County, we reverse the appellant’s sentences and remand fo…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Bradley v. State, 480 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)