WILLIE LEE CARTER, 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.
Willie Lee Carter's probation was revoked and he was sentenced under Florida's sentencing guidelines for a pre-guideline crime without his affirmative selection to be subject to the guidelines. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the defendant did not affirmatively choose guideline sentencing, and because the revocation order included violations not alleged in the original affidavit and warrant.
A defendant whose crime predates the sentencing guidelines cannot be sentenced under the guidelines without affirmative selection, and revocation grounds not alleged in the affidavit and warrant must be struck from the revocation order, even if other sufficient grounds exist to support revocation.
[1] A defendant cannot be sentenced under sentencing guidelines for a crime committed prior to their effective date unless the defendant affirmatively selects to be sentenced…
[2] A trial court must prepare a scoresheet if a defendant selects to be sentenced under the guidelines on remand.
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 trial court revoked appellant's probation and imposed sentence for a crime committed prior to October 1, 1983, the effective date of the sentencing guidelines. On appeal, appellant urges us to reverse on the ground that he was sentenced under the guidelines without the benefit of an affirmative selection.”
Establishes the core issue: whether pre-guideline crimes can be sentenced under guidelines without defendant's affirmative choice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 21, 1985, the trial court revoked appellant's probation and imposed sentence for a crime committed prior to October 1, 1983 (before the sent…
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
CAMPBELL, Judge.
On August 21, 1985, in proceedings below, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and imposed sentence for a crime committed prior to October 1, 1983, the effective date of the sentencing guidelines. On appeal, appellant urges us to reverse on the ground that he was sentenced under the guidelines without the benefit of an affirmative selection. The state concedes that appellant did not select to be sentenced under the guidelines and, therefore, we must reverse and remand for resentencing. See Coleman v. State, 486 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Adams v. State, 483 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Ryan v. State, 482 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Should appellant select to be sentenced under the guidelines on remand, a scoresheet must be prepared. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(1); Gause v. State, 491 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Adams.
Appellant also argues that the order of revocation of probation includes two grounds which were not alleged in the affidavit and warrant. A review of the record indicates that in addition to the two grounds in issue, there were sufficient other violations to warrant revocation. See Underwood v. State, 455 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Cf. Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). On remand, the trial court is instructed to strike from the revocation order those grounds which were neither included in the affidavit and warrant nor proven by the state at the revocation hearing. See, e.g., Underwood; Paul v. State, 421 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). We also instruct the court on remand to correct the scrivener’s errors found in the revocation order (incorrect plea, incorrect date).
Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded for resentencing.
DANAHY, C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Underwood v. State, 455 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Gean Claude Paul v. State, 421 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Florine Adams v. State, 483 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Ryan v. State, 482 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Gause v. State, 491 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Coleman v. State, 486 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)