OBIDIAH MCCASKELL, 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.
Obidiah McCaskell appealed his conviction and sentence for drug trafficking and resisting an officer without violence. The trial court imposed a 3.5-year consecutive sentence that exceeded the sentencing guidelines range without providing written reasons for the departure, which the appellate court found to be reversible error.
The trial court erred in imposing a departure sentence exceeding the guidelines range without providing written reasons. The 1988 amendment establishing permissive sentencing ranges is a substantive change in law that applies prospectively only, not to defendants sentenced before its effective date of July 1988, as retroactive application would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
[1] A sentence exceeding the recommended guidelines range constitutes a departure sentence requiring written reasons.
[2] All offenses before the court for sentencing must be included in one guidelines scoresheet.
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“a sentence must be imposed for each offense but that the total sentence cannot exceed the total recommended guidelines sentence unless a written reason is given”
Establishes the core requirement that departure sentences must have written justification under Rule 3.701(d)(12)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn October 1987, McCaskell was charged with unlawful sale or delivery of a controlled substance and resisting an officer without violence. A jury conv…
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 Substantive Change In Law cases and more on FLexlaw
[*462] DANIEL, Judge.
Defendant, Obidiah McCaskell, appeals the judgment and sentence entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the offenses of unlawful sale or delivery of or unlawful possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance1 and resisting an officer without violence.2
In October of 1987 defendant was charged with committing the offenses of unlawful sale or delivery of or unlawful possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance and resisting an officer without violence. This matter proceeded to trial and in February 1988, a jury returned a verdict of guilty on both charges. The trial court subsequently entered judgment against defendant and then sentenced him to term of 2¾⅞ years imprisonment on the drug related conviction and 1 year imprisonment on the resisting an officer conviction. The trial court directed that the sentence on the resisting an officer conviction run consecutive to the sentence imposed on the drug related conviction. On appeal defendant contends that this is a departure sentence and that the trial court erred in failing to provide written reasons to support the departure. We agree and, therefore, reverse.
Rule 3.701 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that in cases in which a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses all offenses before the court for sentencing must be included in one guidelines scoresheet. The rule further provides that a sentence must be imposed for each offense but that the total sentence cannot exceed the total recommended guidelines sentence unless a written reason is given. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12).
Here, the trial court properly included both offenses on defendant’s scoresheet, specifying the drug conviction as the primary offense and the resisting an officer conviction as the additional offense. The trial court calculated defendant’s points to be 79 thus placing defendant within the second cell. The recommended guidelines sentencing range within the second cell is from 12 to 30 months incarceration. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.988. Since the total sentence imposed by the trial court is 3V2 years imprisonment (2½ years imprisonment on the drug conviction and the consecutive 1 year imprisonment on the resisting an officer conviction) this is clearly a departure sentence. It was, therefore, error for the trial court to impose such a sentence without providing written reasons. Carter v. State, 483 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). See also Finklea v. State, 514 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Cassidy v. State, 464 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
The state’s argument that the 1988 amendment to Rule 3.988 should be applied in this case is without merit. The amendment, which became effective July 1988, establishes a new range of sentences; namely, permissive sentences, and the state is correct in asserting that defendant’s sentence is within the permissive range of sentences for the second cell. The supreme court has ruled, however, that this portion of the 1988 amendment is a substantive change in the law, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure Re: Sentencing Guidelines, 522 So. 2d 374 (Fla.1988); and, therefore, application of the amendment must be prospective only so as to avoid violating the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Art. I § 10, Fla. Const. Defendant’s judgments of guilt are affirmed. Defendant’s sentences are vacated and this matter remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
Judgment AFFIRMED; Sentences VACATED; and REMANDED.
SHARP, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)(l), Fla.Stat. (1987).
. § 843.02, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 564 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…and Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). . Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). . See note 1 and Wiggins v. State, 559 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Roberson v. State, 555 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); McCaskell v. State, 542 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). . See Randolph v. State, 556 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) considering the effect of this in the context of credit for time served.…
-
Roberson v. State, 555 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…Finally, the [*980] amendment changes substantive law. See Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982, 986, n. 2 (Fla.1989) (“formulation of the grid schedules and the recommended ranges for sentencing is clearly substantive law”); see also McCaskell v. State, 542 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (amended rule 3.988 creating the permitted ranges was a substantive change in the law which should have prospective effect only for purposes of ex post facto clause). In State v. Williams, 546 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), the…
-
Emilio Nodel v. State, 579 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ative instruction which could have corrected any error. See McCall v. State, supra. As to the second point, the state concedes error as to the sentencing on the authority of Roberson v. State, 555 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); McCaskell v. State, 542 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Re: Sentencing Guidelines, 522 So. 2d 374 (Fla.1988). Therefore, the conviction is affirmed, the sentence is reversed and the case is remanded with directions for resen-tencing within the gui…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cauthen v. State, 522 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1988)
- Carter v. State, 483 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Cassidy v. State, 464 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Finklea v. State, 514 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)