EDWARD FRANCIS HOFFMAN, 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.
Edward Hoffman appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the sentencing guidelines were improperly applied and the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-third of his sentence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because Hoffman's crimes were committed before the effective date of the sentencing guidelines, he was required to affirmatively elect to be sentenced under them, which he did not do.
The court held that because Hoffman's crimes were committed before July 1, 1984 (the effective date of the sentencing guidelines), he was required to affirmatively elect to be sentenced under the guidelines in order for them to apply. Since Hoffman did not make such an election and was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court properly denied his motion to correct an illegal sentence.
[1] Sentencing guidelines do not apply to offenses committed before their effective date unless the defendant affirmatively elects to be sentenced under the guidelines.
[2] A defendant's participation in a plea bargain may waive the requirement for a judge to adhere to sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 review of the record clearly reflects that the crimes for which Hoffman was sentenced were committed before July 1, 1984, the effective date of the sentencing guidelines, as recently determined by the supreme court in Smith v. State, 537 So.2d 982 (Fla.1989).”
Establishes the temporal framework for determining whether sentencing guidelines applied—crimes must be committed after the effective date for guidelines to apply without election.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoffman was sentenced after July 1, 1984, but the crimes for which he was sentenced occurred before that date. The sentencing was imposed based on a p…
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 Sentencing Guidelines Application cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edward Hoffman appeals the denial by the trial court of his motion and amended motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm.
Hoffman alleges that the sentencing guidelines were improperly applied to his offenses, and that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-third of his sentence. Both arguments are without merit. A review of the record clearly reflects that the crimes for which Hoffman was sentenced were committed before July 1, 1984, the effective date of the sentencing guidelines, as recently determined by the supreme court in Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1989).* Therefore, even though Hoffman was sentenced after July 1, 1984, he must affirmatively elect to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines in order that the guidelines apply to his sentence. See § 921.001(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983); Smith, 537 So. 2d at 987; In re Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines), 439 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1983).
Hoffman did not elect to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. The record reflects that this sentence was imposed based upon a plea bargain in which Hoffman participated. Therefore, the judge imposing the sentence was not required to adhere to the sentencing guidelines. The trial court so found in denying the motion and amended motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and PARKER, JJ., concur. *
The original effective date of the sentencing guidelines was October 1, 1983. In Smith, the supreme court determined that the substantive portions of the sentencing guidelines were constitutionally invalid until adopted by the legislature on July 1, 1984. The decision in Smith does not impact on the present case because appellant's crimes predated October 1, 1983, the original effective date of the sentencing guidelines. Compare Wahl v. State, 543 So. 2d 299 (Fla.2d DCA 1989), in which this court held pursuant to Smith, that a defendant whose crimes were committed after October 1, 1983, but before July 1, 1984, and who was sentenced thereafter, could not be sentenced under the guidelines without an affirmative election.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Rules of Criminal Procedure (sentencing Guidelines), 439 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1983)
- Alphonso P. Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1989)
- Wahl v. State, 543 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)