KENNETH SHARP, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Kenneth Sharp appealed his escape conviction, arguing that the state failed to comply with Florida's Compact for Interstate Agreement on Detainers (section 941.45). The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the statute's requirements did not apply to Sharp's case, but reversed and remanded for resentencing because his sentence was erroneously computed under an incorrect offense category.
Section 941.45 does not apply to Sharp because its statutory requirements were not satisfied. However, Sharp's sentence was erroneously computed because escape was classified under category (8) at sentencing but belonged in category (9) at the time the offense was committed.
[1] The Interstate Agreement on Detainers, as codified in section 941.45, Florida Statutes, applies only when a detainer is lodged against a prisoner for an untried indictmen…
[2] A prisoner's return to a jurisdiction is not predicated upon the Interstate Agreement on Detainers if no untried indictment, information, or complaint was pending at the…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Sharp's contention that section 941.45 applies to him is patently without merit. His return to Florida from Kansas was not predicated upon a detainer lodged against him pursuant to the statute; at the time of his return, there was no "untried indictment, information, or complaint" pending against him in Florida.”
Establishes that the Interstate Compact on Detainers does not apply because the statutory prerequisites were not met.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Sharp was charged with escape. At the time of his return to Florida from Kansas, there was no pending untried indictment, information, or comp…
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 Escape cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Kenneth Sharp appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a charge of escape, based on the state’s failure to comply with section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1985).1 Sharp’s contention that section 941.45 applies to him is patently without merit. His return to Florida from Kansas was not predicated upon a detainer lodged against him pursuant to the statute; at the time of his return, there was no “untried indictment, information, or complaint” pending against him in Florida; there was no allegation that Sharp was serving a sentence of imprisonment in Kansas; and there has been no showing that any written request for custody of Sharp was ever presented to Kansas or that such request was ever “approved, recorded, and transmitted” by a Florida court. The trial court correctly denied Sharp’s motion to dismiss, since the requirements of section 941.45(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), do not apply to Sharp. Consequently, we* affirm the judgment of conviction.
On cross-appeal the state properly contends that Sharp’s sentence was erroneously computed under a category (8) offense classification, which category included escape at the time Sharp was sentenced, but not at the time the offense was committed. See Miller v. State, 482 U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). Although this error was not raised below, a contemporaneous objection is not required to correct a sentencing guideline miscalculation. State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing under a category (9) scoresheet.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
SHARP, C.J., and COWART, J., concur. . The relevant subsection of the statute provides:
(4) REQUEST FOR CUSTODY OR AVAILABILITY.—
(a) The appropriate officer of the jurisdiction in which an untried indictment, information, or complaint is pending shall be entitled to have a prisoner against whom he has lodged a detainer and who is serving a term of imprisonment in any party state made available in accordance with subsection (5)(a) upon presentation of a written request for temporary custody or availability to the appropriate authorities of the state in which the prisoner is incarcerated; provided that the court having jurisdiction of such indictment, information, or complaint shall have duly approved, recorded, and transmitted the request and provided further that there shall be a period of 30 days after receipt by the appropriate authorities before the request be honored, within which period the governor of the sending state may disapprove the request for temporary custody or availability, either upon his own motion or upon motion of the prisoner. (c) In respect of any proceeding made possible by this subsection, trial shall be commenced within 120 days of the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving state....
(Emphasis supplied.)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fredrick M. Lawrence v. State, 590 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…law and may be raised on appeal without contemporaneous objection. See Merchant v. State, 509 So. 2d 1101 (Fla.1987) (failure to make contemporaneous objection to scoresheet error does not bar appeal where error is clear on record); Sharp v. State, 522 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 168 (Fla.1988). See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a) (a court may at any time correct an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet). The scoresheet error did not result in a depar…
-
Vance S. Taylor v. State, 582 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…not an “untried indictment, information or complaint” so as to trigger compliance with section 941.45, Florida Statutes (1989), the Interstate Agreement on Detainers statute. U.S. v. Bottoms, 755 F. 2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1985). See also Sharp v. State, 522 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1987)
- State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1986)