DONALD EVANS HOUSTON, 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 a sentencing guidelines scoresheet is not required in a negotiated plea agreement case where the parties stipulate to a fixed sentence length that is then imposed by the court.
[1] A sentencing guidelines scoresheet is not required when a defendant negotiates a plea agreement stipulating a fixed sentence length that is subsequently imposed by the co…
[2] A defendant is bound by a negotiated plea agreement and is not entitled to a sentence recommended by the guidelines when they have agreed to a specific sentence.
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 intelligenceAppellant pleaded no contest to introducing cannabis into a correctional institute in exchange for a four-year sentence. He appeals, claiming he was u…
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 Anders Brief cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
Appellant, Donald Evans Houston, appeals the sentence imposed upon his conviction for introducing cannabis into the River Junction Correctional Institute. Appellant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to the charge in exchange for a four-year sentence to run consecutively with his existing sentence. Appellant now claims he was unaware of the sentencing guidelines when he agreed to this plea. No sentencing guidelines scoresheet was prepared, and the court noted at the sentencing hearing that a scoresheet was not necessary since this was a negotiated sentence.
The public defender filed an Anders1 brief on behalf of appellant in which he pointed out that rule 3.701(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires a sentencing guidelines scoresheet in every case, but cites Stokes v. State, 476 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), for the proposition that it would be inappropriate to require one where all parties agree on the length of the negotiated sentence.
Appellant has filed a pro se brief, essentially contending that the requirement for a scoresheet is mandatory and that failure to provide one at the sentencing hearing was not harmless error because the sentencing judge must be correctly apprised of defendant’s score and the presumptive sentence to know whether the sentence imposed departs from the sentencing guidelines and requires written reasons for such departure. Appellant relies on Stokes and Key v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 459 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1984), explaining that, although an agreement to be sentenced in excess of the guidelines recommendation may be a clear and convincing reason for departure, he made no such agreement in this case.
The state counters that defendant is bound by his plea agreement and is not entitled to the recommended sentence under the guidelines because he agreed to the particular sentence imposed. The state argues that a sentencing guidelines score-sheet is not necessary in a case such as this where the length of the negotiated sentence was fixed, and that if appellant is arguing that he was not aware that the sentence he agreed to was in excess of the guidelines recommended sentence, the appropriate method for raising this issue is by a motion to withdraw plea pursuant to rule 3.850. The state further points out that if the plea is withdrawn the state would be released from any obligation to seek only four years’ imprisonment and would be free to urge the court to depart from the guidelines up to the statutory maximum of fifteen years.
Our attention has also been directed to White v. State, 489 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), Waldon v. State, 483 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and Scott v. State, 465 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We find, however, that none of the cited cases nor any other decisions discovered through research have dealt precisely with the simple question before us, viz., whether the requirement of rule 3.701(d) that a sentencing guidelines scoresheet be prepared in every case must be complied with where the defendant negotiates a plea agreement stipulating a fixed length of sentence, which is thereafter imposed by the court pursuant to the agreement. All cases coming to our attention have involved negotiated pleas that included a cap on the sentence or an agreement to be sentenced in accordance with the guidelines, without specifying a particular length of sentence.
In this case, the record on appeal reflects that it was represented to the court that defendant agreed to a sentence of four years, and the court accepted that agreement and imposed that sentence. From a practical standpoint, therefore, we see no purpose whatsoever to be served by preparation of a sentencing guidelines score-sheet (except, perhaps, for statistical reporting purposes) and hold that no reversible error occurred when the trial judge imposed sentence in this case without having such scoresheet available to him. Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.
We note that no motion to withdraw the plea was made in the court below; hence, we do not reach any issues concerning appellant’s contention that he was never made aware of his right to sentencing in accordance with the guidelines and that the sentence imposed may have exceeded the guidelines presumptive sentence. This af-firmance, therefore, is without prejudice to whatever rights appellant may have to seek post-conviction relief under criminal rule 3.850. See Waldon v. State, 483 So. 2d 101.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quarterman v. State, 506 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…or because they exceeded the statutory limit. Plea bargain sentences have consistently been recognized as a valid reason for departure from a recommended sentence even if the court does not state other valid reasons for departure. Houston v. State, 502 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Green v. State, 460 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Bell v. State, 453 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Key v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 459 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1984). We have not, in the past, gone…
-
Norberto Pietri v. State, 644 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 1994)…aration of scoresheet and consideration by trial judge), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 960, 111 S.Ct. 2275, 114 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991). The State argues that a scoresheet was not required because Pietri stipulated to the sentences. See, e.g., Houston v. State, 502 So. 2d 977, 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Rowe v. State, 496 So. 2d 857, 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 545 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1989). The “stipulation” to which the State refers is a letter from the prosecutor to the trial judge listing the maximum sentences…
-
Jacobs v. State, 522 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ifying departures that are the result of negotiated pleas. See Davidson v. State, 506 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (since sentences were imposed according to plea bargain, it was unnecessary for trial court to review a scoresheet); Houston v. State, 502 So. 2d 977, 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (“no purpose whatsoever to be served by preparation of a sentencing guidelines score-sheet” when defendant agrees to a specific sentence); Grimes v. State, 499 So. 2d 42, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“a scoresheet seems unnecessa…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- KEY v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Scott v. State, 465 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Stokes v. State, 476 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- White v. State, 489 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Waldon v. State, 483 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)