RANDY ARNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a sentence. Appellant was on probation for circuit court case number 79-209-CF when he was arrested for circuit court case number 84-37-CF and the trial acted as the revocation of probation hearing for case number 79-209-CF. The trial court sentenced appellant under the guidelines for the offenses in case number 84-37-CF. Although the offenses in case number 79-209-CF were calculated on that scoresheet as prior record, the court sentenced appellant for case number 79-209-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). 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 case number 79-209-CF is quashed and remanded for resentencing under the original scoresheet.
QUASHED and REMANDED.
COWART, J., and UPCHURCH, J., Retired, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arnette v. State, 566 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…further proceedings. DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . Chapter 85-288 § 24, Laws of Florida. . We reject the State’s contention that consideration of this issue is precluded because the issue was not raised in the inital appeal (Arnett v. State, 526 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). It is fundamental error to impose an illegal sentence. Reynolds v. State, 429 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). . Arnett v. State, 526 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). . See Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1988). . And inf…1 / 2
-
Alvarez v. State, 600 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…prepared for the four violation of probation cases. This constituted error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d.l. which mandates that one scoresheet be prepared for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. Arnett v. State, 526 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). The Committee Note to rule 3.701 d.1.,1 which makes the sentencing court responsible for the accurate preparation of scoresheets, requires us to place the burden upon the trial court to assure that all of a defendant’s cases pen…
-
Rice v. State, 546 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…edure 3.701(d)(1) which mandates that one score-sheet be prepared 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…
Authorities Cited
- Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Hagins v. State, 509 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Stokes v. State, 512 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)