MICHAEL LEON JACKSON, A/K/A SAM BROWN, A/K/A LARRY BROWN, A/K/A MICHAEL BROWN, 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 appellant challenges his sentences imposed after revocation of his community control and probation terms for multiple offenses. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly scored offenses on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet by treating crimes committed before October 1, 1986 as "prior record" rather than "additional offenses at conviction."
The court held that since all crimes at issue were committed prior to October 1, 1986, they should have been scored as "additional offenses at conviction" rather than "prior record" because the committee note requiring the alternative scoring did not become effective until October 1, 1986. The improper scoring resulted in an incorrect sentencing range, necessitating reversal and remand for resentencing.
[1] Offenses for which a defendant is on community control or probation at the time of the commission of new offenses should be scored as 'additional offenses at conviction'…
[2] A sentencing guidelines scoresheet improperly calculated due to incorrect scoring of offenses requires reversal and remand for resentencing.
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“since all of the crimes in question were committed prior to October 1, 1986, they should have been scored as "additional offenses at conviction," rather than "prior record."”
Establishes the core legal holding regarding proper scoring of offenses under the sentencing guidelines
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, using multiple aliases, was placed on community control or probation for thirteen different offenses. He was found guilty of violating …
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 Prior Record Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after the trial court revoked his various terms of community control and probation. We find that appellant’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet was improperly calculated and, accordingly, reverse and remand for resentencing.
The appellant, apparently due to the use of several aliases, was placed on terms of community control or probation for thirteen different offenses. He was subsequently found guilty of violating the terms and conditions of his community control and probation by committing new offenses. The sentencing guidelines scoresheet submitted to the trial court scored as “prior record” the offenses for which his community control and probation had been revoked. Pursuant to that scoresheet and a one cell departure allowed by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14), the appellant was sentenced to serve a total of twelve years imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.
We agree with the appellant’s contention that since all of the crimes in question were committed prior to October 1, 1986, they should have been scored as “additional offenses at conviction,” rather than “prior record.” The committee note to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5), in effect at the time of the appellant’s sentencing, required the offenses for which he was on community control and probation to be scored as “prior record.” This committee note, however, did not become effective until October 1, 1986. See Ch. 86-273, Laws of Fla. The offenses, therefore, should have been scored as “additional offenses at conviction.” DeVille v. State, 529 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). See also, Mincey v. State, 525 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Slappy v. State, 516 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Since the improper scoring of the appellant’s offenses resulted in a guidelines score that placed him in an incorrect sentencing range, we reverse and remand for resentencing. On remand, a correct scoresheet indicating the proper number of “additional offenses at conviction” and the proper number of offenses to be scored as “prior record” should be prepared. Because the trial court did not consider the original sentences a departure from the guidelines, our disposition of this case is without prejudice to the trial court’s ability to impose a departure sentence based upon proper written reasons. See Waldron v. State, 529 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newsome v. State, 539 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…es. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court to resentence Newsome utilizing a corrected scoresheet and without prejudice to the trial judge’s ability to impose a departure sentence based upon proper written reasons. See Jackson v. State, 534 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS. DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Waldron v. State, 529 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Slappy v. State, 516 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- DeVILLE v. State, 529 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Mincey v. State, 525 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)