RODERICK ROUNDTREE, 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 the trial court's reasons for departing from the presumptive guidelines sentence were invalid.
The appellant was convicted of DUI manslaughter and other offenses. The trial court departed from the presumptive guidelines sentence, citing the appe…
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 Presumptive Guidelines Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Roderick Roundtree appeals his sentences for three counts of DUI manslaughter, one count of possession of cannabis, and one count of driving while his license was suspended or revoked. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court departed from the presumptive guidelines sentence for invalid reasons and therefore reverse for resentencing.
The trial court stated as a reason for departure that the appellant’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit and that the appellant drove a vehicle and crashed head-on into another vehicle causing three deaths. This fact is an inherent component of DUI manslaughter and therefore will not support a departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence. See § 316.193(3)(c)3, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986); State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1986).
The trial court also stated as reasons for departure that the appellant’s driving privilege had previously been suspend ed or revoked and not reinstated and that the appellant had previously been convicted of driving under the influence. However, these reasons were scored on the appellant’s scoresheet as an additional offense at conviction and prior record, respectively. Consequently, neither of these reasons supports a departure sentence either. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985).
Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand this cause for resentencing within the guidelines.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deatrich v. State, 534 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ly upon the fact that the appellant had a high blood alcohol level. The appellant’s blood alcohol level was an inherent component of the offenses for which he was sentenced and, therefore, cannot support a departure sentence. See Roundtree v. State, 528 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We, accordingly, reverse the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand for resentencing within the guidelines sentencing range. See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987). On remand, the trial court must also correct t…
-
Aleman v. State, 536 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…violated or this crime was committed.” Upon consideration, we find that the trial court’s reasons do not satisfy the legal requirements for departure. The first reason, victim’s death, is an inherent component of manslaughter, Roundtree v. State, 528 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Aleman, however, was acquitted of that charge. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll) states that “[rjeasons for deviating from the guidelines shall not include factors relating to the instant offenses for which convicti…
Authorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1986)