ERNEST ZINNERMON, A/K/A EARNEST ZINNERMON, 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.
Ernest Zinnermon appeals his sentences for burglary with assault, sexual battery, and robbery on his second appeal before this court. The court affirms his convictions but reverses and remands for resentencing because the trial court improperly considered a subsequently-convicted prior offense and departed from the recommended guidelines range despite appellate remand instructions to sentence within that range.
The court holds that the trial court erred in two respects: (1) it should not have scored the new offense as a prior offense because although it was committed before the subject offenses, the conviction was not obtained until after the initial sentencing; and (2) it erred in departing from the recommended guidelines range on remand, as an appellate court's reversal for resentencing within the recommended range precludes new reasons for departure.
[1] A conviction obtained after initial sentencing cannot be scored as a prior offense for purposes of calculating a sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
[2] A trial court may not rely on new reasons for departure from sentencing guidelines on remand when an appellate court has previously found all prior reasons for departure…
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“The trial court erred in two respects. First, it should not have considered the new offense as a "prior offense" in the appellant's score since, although the offense was committed prior to the subject offenses, a conviction was not obtained until after the appellant's initial sentencing.”
Establishes the rule that prior offenses must have convictions obtained before the initial sentencing to be properly scored.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZinnermon was convicted of burglary with assault, sexual battery, and robbery. On his first appeal, this court reversed his sentences because the tria…
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 Burglary With Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Ernest Zinnermon appeals from his judgments and sentences for burglary with assault, sexual battery, and robbery. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
This is the second appeal before this court concerning the appellant’s sentences. This court reversed and remanded the appellant’s first sentences for resentencing within the recommended guidelines range because the trial court erroneously based its departure from the recommended range on the appellant’s habitual offender status. Zinnermon v. State, 511 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). On remand, the trial court again departed from the recommended range of twenty-two to twenty-seven years’ incarceration and sentenced the appellant to life for burglary with assault, to be served concurrently with consecutive fifteen-year sentences for sexual battery and robbery.
At the time of resentencing, the state prepared a new scoresheet including a new offense committed by the appellant before the present offenses for which a conviction was obtained subsequent to the initial sentencing. The addition of points for the new offense raised the recommended sentence to life. The trial court was unsure whether the new offense could be scored and the recommended sentence raised; therefore, in an abundance of caution, it sentenced the appellant to life and submitted new reasons for departure.
The trial court erred in two respects. First, it should not have considered the new offense as a “prior offense” in the appellant’s score since, although the offense was committed prior to the subject offenses, a conviction was not obtained until after the appellant’s initial sentencing. See Duval v. State, 539 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Second, the trial court erred in departing from the twenty-two to twenty-seven year recommended guidelines range after this court remanded for resentencing within the recommended range. When an appellate court finds that none of a trial court’s reasons for departure are valid, the trial court may not rely on new reasons for departure on remand. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987).
Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s judgments, and we reverse his sentences and remand for resentencing within the recommended guidelines range.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Earnest Zinnermon v. State, 511 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Duval v. State, 539 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)