ROGER BRANAM, 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.
Roger Branam appealed his resentencing after this court previously found his downward departure from guidelines invalid. The court held that sentencing guidelines take precedence over a trial judge's discretion under Florida law to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences, and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether consecutive sentences must be imposed when maximum sentences are less than the guidelines scoresheet recommends.
The court held that sentencing guidelines law takes precedence over the concurrent-consecutive sentencing statute. When maximum sentences in the aggregate are less than the guidelines scoresheet calls for, a trial judge should impose consecutive sentences as the closest means of complying with the guidelines.
[1] Sentencing guidelines take precedence over statutes granting trial judges discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.
[2] A later enacted sentencing guidelines law is presumed to reflect the latest legislative intent over an earlier statute concerning concurrent or consecutive sentencing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We hold that the sentencing guidelines law takes precedence over the concurrent-consecutive statute for various reasons. First, the guidelines law was enacted subsequent to section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987) and thus would be presumed to be the latest expression of legislative intent.”
Establishes that guidelines law supersedes the discretionary concurrent-consecutive sentencing statute as the more recent legislative enactment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBranam was convicted of sexual battery with threats of force or violence, attempted sexual battery, and false imprisonment. The sentencing guidelines …
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 Downward Departure From Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Roger Branam, was convicted of sexual battery with threats of force or violence, attempted sexual battery, and false imprisonment. His sentencing guidelines scoresheet reflects a recommended prison sentence of life. The trial court originally sentenced Branam to terms of five years in prison for each of the above offenses to run concurrently, and listed reasons for departing downward from the recommended guidelines range.
This court previously found none of the reasons for departure valid and remanded “for resentencing within the guidelines.” See Branam v. State, 526 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). This court also noted that the presumptive guidelines sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for the of fenses and that Branam must be resen-tenced to the maximum term provided by the applicable statutes.
On remand, the trial judge sentenced appellant to terms of thirty years, five years, and five years, to be served consecutively. There is no disagreement about the length of these terms which are the máximums under the respective statutes. The appellant contends, however, that the trial judge abused his discretion in resentencing appellant to consecutive terms of imprisonment. The appellant argues that, in essence, this court’s original opinion only remanded for resentencing on the count for which appellant did not originally receive the statutory maximum. We disagree. The guidelines scoresheet applied to all three counts and this court’s prior opinion dealt with all of the counts.
We perceive a related and more difficult question. On remand the trial judge believed that he had no discretion but to impose consecutive sentences. The question we face is whether the guidelines range takes precedence over the discretion given to a trial judge by section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987) to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.
We hold that the sentencing guidelines law takes precedence over the concurrent-consecutive statute for various reasons. First, the guidelines law was enacted subsequent to section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987) and thus would be presumed to be the latest expression of legislative intent. Second, and by analogy, it has been held that the guidelines law takes precedence over the earlier statute dealing with habitual offenders. See Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). Finally, in a case where consecutive sentences would exceed the guidelines, we have no doubt that the judge’s discretion under section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987) would also be superseded by the guidelines, in that case making concurrent sentences mandatory. It is obvious that in this case the closest that the judge can come to sentencing within the guidelines is to impose consecutive sentences.
Because this appears to be a case of first impression, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:
“When there are multiple convictions and maximum sentences which in the aggregate are less than called for by the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, must a trial judge impose consecutive sentences in order to bring the sentences within the guidelines or as close thereto as possible?”
AFFIRMED.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Branam v. State, 554 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1990)…GRIMES, Justice. We review Branam v. State, 540 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), which certified the following question as one of great public importance: When there are multiple convictions and maximum sentences which in the aggregate are less than called for by the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, must a…
-
State v. Tripp, 591 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…o bring the sentence within the guidelines recommendation, it cannot impose consecutive sentences of incarceration at a single sentencing hearing absent a valid written reason for departure. See Branam v. State, 554 So. 2d 512 (Fla.1990), approving, 540 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); § 921.16, Fla.Stat. (1987); Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)12. By contrast, the sentencing method authorized by this case allows trial courts to greatly exceed the incarceration contemplated by the guidelines and Lambert upon a single vi…
-
Fannin v. State, 751 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…tated that stacking of minimum mandatory sentences, although improper under Branam, “appears to have been proper at the time it was imposed.... ” See id. at 585; see also Kraft v. State, 583 So. 2d 365, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).2 In Branam v. State, 540 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), this court considered the issue of whether the trial court must stack maximum sentences to reach a minimum guidelines sentence. We certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: When there are multiple conviction…
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
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Branam v. State, 526 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)