RAY CARL HAGINS, 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.
Ray Carl Hagins appeals his sentencing for multiple theft and burglary offenses, challenging the trial court's use of separate sentencing guidelines scoresheets for offenses committed in different years but pending for sentencing simultaneously. The court finds merit in his argument that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1) requires a single scoresheet covering all offenses pending before the court at the time of sentencing.
The trial court erred by using separate scoresheets for different offenses pending for sentencing at the same time. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1) requires that one guideline scoresheet be used for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing, regardless of when those offenses were committed.
[1] A trial court must utilize a single guideline scoresheet for a defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.
[2] A trial court errs by using more than one guideline scoresheet when sentencing a defendant for multiple offenses pending at the same time.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[o]ne guideline scoresheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing”
The controlling rule establishing that a single scoresheet must cover all offenses pending at the time of sentencing, regardless of when those offenses were committed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1982, Hagins was convicted of three counts of burglary of a dwelling and two counts of grand theft in Lee County Circuit Court. He was committed to…
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 Attempted Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Ray Carl Hagins appeals his judgments and sentences for various theft offenses. He raises four points on appeal. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred in using more than one score-sheet when sentencing him for the several offenses pending before the court.
In 1982 the appellant was adjudicated guilty in Lee County Circuit Court of three counts of burglary of a dwelling and two counts of grand theft. He was committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections on the first count and directed to complete a term of four years in the Youthful Offender Program. On each of the remaining four counts the appellant was placed on five years’ concurrent probation, to run consecutively to the term in the Youthful Offender Program.
In 1985 an affidavit was filed against the appellant alleging that he violated his probation by committing two burglaries of a dwelling. The appellant was subsequently charged in Lee County Circuit Court with one count of burglary of a dwelling and found guilty by a jury of attempted burglary.
At the sentencing hearing on December 4, 1985, the trial court revoked the appellant’s probation for the four respective 1982 offenses based on the appellant’s conviction of attempted burglary. The appellant then elected to be sentenced under the guidelines, and the court sentenced him to three and one-half years’ imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently. The sentence was imposed pursuant to a score-sheet that placed the appellant in the two-and-one-half-to-three-and-one-half- year range. The court then sentenced the appellant to five years’ imprisonment for the 1985 offense, to run consecutively to the sentences for the 1982 offenses. This sentence was imposed pursuant to a separate scoresheet that placed the appellant in the four-and-one-half-to-five-and-one-half-year range.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1) requires that “[o]ne guideline scoresheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing” (emphasis added). See also Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (the burden is “upon the trial court to assure that all of a defendant’s cases pending for sentencing in a particular county at the time of that defendant’s first sentencing hearing are disposed of using one scoresheet”); accord Boston v. State, 481 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Accordingly, because the trial court in the instant case used more than one score-sheet in sentencing the appellant for all of the offenses pending for sentencing in Lee County, we reverse the appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing using one properly calculated scoresheet.
DANAHY, C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arnett v. State, 526 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…heet. This was error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1) which mandates that one score-sheet be prepared for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. Stokes v. State, 512 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hagins v. State, 509 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). [*1076] Since both cases were pending for sentencing, the trial court should have sentenced appellant for all offenses under the original scoresheet. Appellant’s sentence in…
-
Rice v. State, 546 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…ncing. Washington v. State, 539 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Ford v. State, 528 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Arnett v. State, 526 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also, Stokes v. State, 512 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hagins v. State, 509 So. 2d 1244 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). In Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), this court held that the trial judge has the burden to assure that all of the defendant’s cases pending for sentencing in a particular county are disposed of using one sco…
-
Finklea v. State, 514 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…1987); Sparkman v. State, 507 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Foster v. State, 491 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Bruton v. State, 489 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), appeal after remand, 510 So. 2d 1243, (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); and Hagins v. State, 509 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Once again, this court must reverse appellant’s sentence and remand with instructions to the trial court to sentence appellant within the guidelines, which means he will serve a total sentence not to exceed 12 years. Reversed fo…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Boston v. State, 481 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)