ROBBIE PUGH, 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 reversed and remanded because the trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines based on appellant's past criminal history was invalid, and clarified that only prior convictions before the offense may be included in the guidelines scoresheet.
A trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines based solely on past criminal history is invalid, and on remand the court may recalculate the scoresheet using prior convictions not previously included, but post-offense convictions may only support departure, not scoresheet points.
[1] Prior convictions occurring before the offense in question may be included in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet on remand if not previously included and not disapproved,…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Pugh was convicted of grand theft; his conviction was affirmed but his sentence was reversed due to improper scoresheet calculation in a pri…
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 Presumptive Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
On February 19, 1985, this court affirmed appellant’s conviction for grand theft, but reversed his sentence because the sentencing scoresheet was improperly calculated. Pugh v. State, 463 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). On remand, the trial court based appellant’s presumptive sentence on the 87 points approved in that opinion, but departed from the sentence recommended by the guidelines based on appellant’s “past criminal history.”
On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court’s reason for departure was invalid, and we agree. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218, 1220 (Fla.1985). On remand, the trial court may calculate a new guidelines scoresheet based on current information about appellant’s prior record, including any convictions prior to the offense in question which were not included in the original scoresheet and not disapproved in our prior opinion. Any convictions obtained after the offense in question may not be included in the guidelines score-sheet, but may be used as a basis for departure. Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Prince v. State, 461 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Davis v. State, 455 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BOOTH, C.J., and JOANOS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thorp v. State, 555 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1990)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Thorp v. State, 537 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), based on conflict with Pugh v. State, 499 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. [*363] Thorp first committed a federal crime. Thereafter, he committed certain drug offenses which are the subject of t…1 / 2
-
Felts v. State, 537 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…did not constitute "additional offenses at conviction” under rule 3.701(d)(4), nor "prior record” under rule 3.701(d)(5). . Campos v. State, 515 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). . Austin v. State, 507 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Pugh v. State, 499 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Kigar v. State, 495 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Wright v. State, 491 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Safford v. State, 488 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Prince v. State, 4…
-
Riley Bernard Smith v. State, 518 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…information concerning the defendant has been considered in determining the proper length of his sentence.” 7d.3 Smith argues that the Second District’s view conflicts with that of other district courts, including the First District, Pugh v. State, 499 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Fourth District, Prince v. State, 461 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) and this district, Davis v. State, 455 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In each of these cases, the courts…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Davis v. State, 455 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Prince v. State, 461 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Robbie Pugh v. State, 463 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)