ALBERT SASKOWITZ, 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.
The court held that convicting a defendant for uncharged offenses is fundamental error, and sentencing for a pre-guideline offense without an affirmative election is also error.
Saskowitz pleaded guilty to violating probation and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment without an affirmative selection under the guidelines.…
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 Election For Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Saskowitz was serving three concurrent five year terms of probation, stemming from three successive informations alleging illicit drug activity which had occurred prior to October 1, 1983, when, in January of 1985, he was charged with violating probation. Saskowitz pleaded guilty to violating probation in all three cases, probation was revoked, and he was sentenced without an affirmative selection under the guidelines to fifteen years of imprisonment.
The trial court departed from the guidelines, stating that Saskowitz committed the identical offenses for which he was placed on probation, disregarded the criminal justice system and was unable to conform to probation.
Saskowitz’s first point on appeal attacks the convictions resulting from an original five count information in spite of the fact that that information had been amended to contain only two counts. It is fundamental error to convict a person of an offense which is not charged. Gay v. State, 432 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Thus, Saskowitz’s convictions for the three uncharged counts are vacated.
Saskowitz also correctly claims that it was error for the trial court to sentence him pursuant to the guidelines for a pre-guideline offense, absent an affirmative election. See State v. Boyett, 467 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1985); Hart v. State, 464 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we also vacate the sentences based upon a departure from the guidelines.
Saskowitz’s third and final claim pertains to other sentencing guideline matters which we need not reach because of the lack of affirmative selection.
This matter is remanded to the trial court for further sentencing proceedings consistent with this opinion. In the event Saskowitz elects to be sentenced pursuant to Rule 3.701, the trial court may depart for valid reasons.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
P.D.W. v. State, 620 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…. 2d 658 (Fla.1988). The state, however, never charged the appellant with resisting a merchant; therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appellant guilty of that offense, and this error is fundamental. See Saskowitz v. State, 498 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Thus, we vacate the appellant’s adjudication and commitment for resisting a merchant. The appellant also argues that he did not validly waive his right to a predisposition report (PDR). Contrary to the appellant’s assertions, a…
Authorities Cited
- Hardinghaus v. Enslen, 464 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- GAY v. State, 432 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- State v. Coye Elliott Boyett, 467 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1985)