LENTON JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Jones appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion to vacate his ten-year sentence for violation of probation, arguing he lacked knowledge of sentencing guidelines options and received ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found the trial court erred in assessing guideline points for legal constraint, requiring resentencing to a maximum of 9 years.
The court rejected Jones's claim of counsel incompetence at resentencing regarding inclusion of a 16-year-old prior offense, but found the trial court erred in assessing 36 points for legal constraint. With the correct point total of 196, the applicable guideline range was 4.5 to 5.5 years, increasing to a maximum of 9 years under the next cell provision. The sentence was reversed and remanded for resentencing.
[1] A defendant is entitled to elect sentencing under the guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, if applicable.
[2] Failure of counsel to adequately instruct a defendant on the right to elect sentencing under applicable guidelines constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
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“The appellant was apparently sentenced outside the guidelines even though a score sheet was prepared.”
Establishes that the original sentence was imposed outside the guideline framework despite calculation of a score sheet.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was sentenced to ten years for violation of probation for an original offense that predated the sentencing guidelines. At the resentencing heari…
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 Legal Constraint Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary denial of a Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure motion.
In his motion to vacate, the appellant alleged he was entitled to relief from his ten-year sentence for violation of probation because the original offense occurred before the creation of sentencing guidelines and he was not given the right or the necessary knowledge to elect whether or not he wanted to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time. He further contended that failure of counsel to adequately instruct him of this fact prior to pleading to the probation violation charge constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. (The appellant was apparently sentenced outside the guidelines even though a score sheet was prepared.)
Pursuant to motion by the state this court relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for purposes of resentencing. At that time, after full explanation of the consequences, the appellant elected sentencing under the guidelines. Computation of points thereunder totaled 232 (which included points for 2 prior offenses) calling for a sentence of 7 to 9 years. Pursuant to Rule 3.701 d 14, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure the trial court increased it to the next guideline range and sentenced the appellant to 10 years.
The appellant filed what he called a Traverse to the Status Report — Resentencing, wherein he alleged incompetency of counsel at the resentencing hearing because he permitted the trial court to compute into the guidelines a prior offense that was 16 years old and was not utilized in computing the score sheet at the time of the original sentencing even though it was known by the trial court.
After reviewing the record of the hearing on resentencing, we find that this allegation is without merit. However, in reviewing the sentencing guideline sheet we find an error that was not raised. The appellant was assessed 36 points for being under legal constraint at the time of the offense. This is refuted by the record. Therefore, the point total should not be 232, but should be 196, which calls for a 4 and lk to 5 and lh year sentence, increasing it to the next cell (guideline range) the maximum sentence that could have been imposed was 9 years. Therefore, the sentence is reversed and the matter returned to the trial court for resentencing.
Reversed with directions.