JAMES RANDY COLEMAN, 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 Randy Coleman appealed his sentences for multiple felonies, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to apply Florida's sentencing guidelines to three noncapital felonies (sexual battery, robbery, and burglary) that were concomitant to a capital murder conviction. The appellate court agreed, holding that sentencing guidelines apply to noncapital felonies even when sentenced alongside a capital offense.
The sentencing guidelines apply to noncapital felonies committed after the effective date, even when those felonies are concomitant to a capital offense. The trial court erred in disregarding the guidelines for the noncapital crimes. The sentences for the three noncapital felonies are reversed and remanded for resentencing in accordance with guidelines, unless the court finds departure appropriate. The life sentence for first degree murder is affirmed.
[1] Sentencing guidelines apply to all noncapital felonies committed after October 1, 1983, regardless of whether they are concomitant offenses to a capital felony.
[2] A trial court must consider sentencing guidelines for noncapital felonies even when the defendant is also convicted of a capital felony.
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“Section 921.001(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), requires all noncapital felonies committed after October 1, 1983 be adjudicated under the sentencing guidelines.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of guideline application to noncapital felonies within the statutory timeframe
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceColeman was tried for first degree murder, sexual battery, robbery with a firearm, and burglary, all committed on June 22, 1984. The jury found him gu…
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 Aggravating And Mitigating Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Chief Judge.
James Randy Coleman was tried by jury on charges of first degree murder, sexual battery using force likely to cause serious personal injury, robbery with a firearm, and burglary of a dwelling during the commission of a battery, all committed on June 22, 1984.
The jury found Coleman guilty as charged with regard to the murder, robbery and burglary, but as to the sexual battery charge they declared him guilty of the lesser included offense of sexual battery by the use of force and violence not likely to cause serious personal injury. As for the advisory opinion of the jury, pursuant to section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1985), it was their recommendation that Coleman receive a life sentence for the capital felony of first degree murder. The court adjudicated Coleman guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years for the first degree murder; a consecutive term of fifteen years imprisonment for the sexual battery; a concurrent term of thirty years with three years mandatory minimum for the robbery with a firearm; and a concurrent term of thirty years imprisonment for the burglary. There is no record that the court had a sentencing guidelines scoresheet prepared for Coleman, that counsel informed the court of the presumptive sentence under the guidelines, nor that the court considered the guidelines in sentencing Coleman. It is for this reason that Coleman appeals his sentence.
Section 921.001(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), requires all noncapital felonies committed after October 1, 1983 be adjudicated under the sentencing guidelines. Although Coleman’s crimes were committed after this effective date for guidelines sentencing, the first degree murder conviction, unlike the others, is a capital felony.
Therefore, the guidelines are not applicable to this, Coleman’s primary offense. Yet, the other convictions would, absent the capital felony, ordinarily receive a presumptive sentence under the guidelines for their sentencing. Evidently, because of this dilemma, the trial court disregarded the sentencing guidelines for the sentencing of the noncapital felonies, since they were concomitant offenses to the first degree murder. It is the state’s contention that inasmuch as Coleman was adjudicated guilty of a capital felony, the concomitant offenses to this homicide, sexual battery, robbery and burglary, should not require sentencing guidelines reflection, since it would act as an abstraction to the capital felony prosecution. Further, the sentencing guidelines cannot factor in the capital felony so any accumulated score and presumptive sentence would be distorted.
Moreover, section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1985), requires the court to take into consideration, as well as the jury for their recommended sentence to the court, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the capital crime for the purpose of sentencing.
Therefore, section 921.141 for capital felonies is the functional equivalent of the sentencing guidelines for noncapital crimes.
Coleman contends that the three noncapi-tal felonies demand prosecution under the sentencing guidelines by virtue of section 921.001. We agree and reverse the trial court’s imposed sentences for the noncapi-tal crimes, and remand with instructions that the court resentence Coleman for the sexual battery, robbery and burglary convictions in accordance with the guidelines unless the court finds within its discretion that-guidelines departure is appropriate.
The sentence imposed as a result of the conviction of first degree murder is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Disinger v. State, 526 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…sentence on the indecent assault charge is incorrect, it will not affect appellant in light of the mandatory 25 years’ incarceration on the other charges, nevertheless, the defendant is entitled to have the record set straight. See Coleman v. State, 483 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). With respect to the out-of-state convictions, the State must corroborate the degree of convictions which were disputed by appellant. Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla…
-
Smith v. State, 501 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ourt incorrectly included 136 points on the guidelines score-sheet for appellant’s first degree murder conviction, a capital felony, as an additional offense at conviction. See Leopard v. State, 491 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Coleman v. State, 483 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). For the same reason, the trial court incorrectly included 21 points for victim injury involved in the first degree murder conviction. Because victim injury is not an element of attempted first degree murder, see §§ 782.04(1) and…
-
Walker v. State, 508 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…1986) (relies on Knowlton v. State, 466 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1985) which holds error to depart on amount taken of a single victim where victim suffered no physical or psychological trauma); Coleman v. State, 483 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (not on point-involved concomitant noncapital offenses and first-degree murder).…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence