JAMES HALL, 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.
James Hall appeals his probation revocation and consecutive five-year sentences after pleading guilty to burglary and grand theft, then violating probation. The court found two technical errors: the revocation order incorrectly stated Hall pleaded guilty to the violation when he actually pled not guilty and was found guilty, and the trial court imposed guideline sentences without a clear affirmative election to do so.
The revocation order must be corrected to reflect that Hall was found guilty but did not plead guilty to the violation. The sentences must be corrected to reflect they are nonguideline sentences, though resentencing is unnecessary since the maximum permissible sentences were already imposed.
[1] A revocation order must accurately reflect whether a defendant pled guilty to or was found guilty of a probation violation.
[2] A defendant may not be sentenced under sentencing guidelines absent an affirmative election, even if the record implies such an election was made.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The order revoking probation, however, indicates appellant pled guilty to the violation. Accordingly, we find it necessary to remand to the trial court with instructions to correct the revocation order to reflect appellant was found guilty, but did not plead guilty.”
Establishes the first error: the inaccurate plea notation in the revocation order that must be corrected on remand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall pled guilty to burglary and grand theft and received concurrent five-year probation sentences. Subsequently, he was charged with violating probat…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant was charged with burglary and grand theft. Appellant pled guilty to both charges and was placed on concurrent terms of five years probation. Subsequently, appellant was charged with violating a condition of his probation. He pled not guilty to the violation of probation charge.
At the probation violation hearing, the trial court determined appellant guilty of violating his probation and entered an order revoking probation. Appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count to run consecutively.
Appellant raises several issues on appeal. We find it necessary to discuss only two of those issues.
First, appellant questions the technical correctness of the order revoking probation. An examination of the record reveals that appellant pled not guilty to the violation of probation, but was found guilty as a result of the hearing. The order revoking probation, however, indicates appellant pled guilty to the violation. Accordingly, we find it necessary to remand to the trial court with instructions to correct the revocation order to reflect appellant was found guilty, but did not plead guilty. See Underwood v. State, 455 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Second, appellant alleges the trial court erred in sentencing him under the guidelines absent an affirmative election. We have had numerous eases whereby the record clearly reflects the trial judge has been led to believe there has been an affirmative election, but the record does not specifically reflect the election itself. The defendant in those situations takes advantage, on appeal, of the misconception of the trial judge. While we are sympathetic with the plight of the trial judge in those instances, if the election is not clearly made, we are required to reverse. Rafael Delos Rios v. State, 483 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Blackwelder v. State, 476 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). While the implications that an affirmative election had been made are somewhat stronger in this case than in Rafael Delos Rios, we are unable, in good conscience, to distinguish them.
Accordingly, on remand, the sentences should be corrected to reflect that they are nonguideline sentences. Resentencing is not necessary since the trial court imposed the maximum sentences permissible under general law. Hart v. State, 464 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McPHAUL v. State, 497 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…atively selected guidelines sentencing. The state acknowledges that the record does not reflect such an affirmative selection. Therefore, we remand for the sentence to be corrected to reflect that it is a nonguidelines sentence. As in Hall v. State, 482 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), “Resentencing is not necessary since the trial court imposed the maximum sentences permissible under general law.” See Hart v. State, 464 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). For the same reason we need not and do not reach defe…
-
Terrell v. State, 486 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…Jackson v. State, 478 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985). Counsel for the State has argued a distinction between the failure to object to a departure from guideline sentencing and the failure to object to guideline sentencing per se. In Hall v. State, 482 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986), the court noted it had reviewed many cases— whereby the record clearly reflects the trial judge has been led to believe there has been an affirmative election, but the record does not specifically reflect the election itself. T…
-
Natal Rasul v. State, 498 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…h the law existing at the time he committed the offense, unless he affirmatively elects to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. The record failed to show that appellant elected to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. Hall v. State, 482 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Appellant was improperly sentenced as an habitual offender. At the sentencing hearing, the state introduced several convictions in an effort to show appellant is an habitual offender. Appellant challenged each of these convicti…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blackwelder v. State, 476 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Hardinghaus v. Enslen, 464 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Underwood v. State, 455 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Rios v. State, 483 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)