WILLIE LEE STOKES, 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.
Trial court erred in sentencing appellant beyond the guidelines range without entering written reasons for the departure, requiring reversal.
A trial court must provide written reasons when departing from sentencing guidelines, and a defendant is entitled to concurrent sentencing under a single scoresheet when multiple cases are pending before the same judge.
[1] A trial court must provide written reasons when sentencing a defendant beyond the guidelines range, and when multiple cases are pending before the same judge, the defenda…
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 was convicted of armed robbery and violation of probation. A single guidelines scoresheet was prepared scoring both offenses with a recommen…
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 Scoresheet Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Chief Judge.
The trial court erred in sentencing appellant beyond the guidelines range without entering written reasons for the departure. A defendant is entitled to the benefits of a uniform scoresheet and contemporaneous concurrent sentencing when his cases are pending before a judge for sentencing. Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Here, appellant’s armed robbery case was pending for sentencing before the trial judge as was the case in which he had been found guilty of violation of probation (VOP). One guidelines scoresheet was prepared, scoring appellant for his primary offense of armed robbery, and for his secondary offense as to which he became subject to sentence because of his VOP, resulting in a recommended range of six years. The trial judge sentenced appellant to five years for the underlying offense in the VOP case, and imposed a consecutive three year sentence in the robbery case. In so doing, he erroneously departed from the guidelines without providing written reasons. See Carter v. State, 483 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Gissenger v. State, 481 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); compare Nelson v. State, 498 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
REVERSED.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents with written opinion.
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting.
The sentences below should be affirmed. It is uncontested that the two offenses were totally unrelated, and therefore the trial court had full authority to impose these consecutive sentences. I can find no justification for disallowing a single judge’s action in this case when, concededly, had two judges imposed these sentences they would be valid.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arnett v. State, 526 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…209-CF at a later time and calculated a second scoresheet. 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…
-
Rice v. State, 546 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…d for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. 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 sentencin…
-
Finklea v. State, 514 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…lant consecutively, and therefore imposed two 12 year consecutive sentences so that appellant would serve a total of 24 years. We find that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences when it re-sentenced appellant. See Stokes v. State, 512 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 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 Ha…
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
- Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Carter v. State, 483 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Gissinger v. State, 481 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Cardona v. Rudolph Scheerer, M.D., 498 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Nelson v. State, 498 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)