JEFFREY LOUIS SMITH,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's sentencing decision for a defendant convicted of fleeing and resisting arrest. The defendant argued his prior federal drug convictions were scored incorrectly on his sentencing scoresheet, but the court found the trial court properly applied the analogous state statute.
No, the trial court did not err in scoring the appellant's prior federal drug convictions. The court found that the Florida statute used was analogous to the federal statute under which the appellant was convicted.
[1] When scoring a prior federal conviction for sentencing purposes, a trial court should look to an analogous or parallel state statute.
[2] The quantity ranges of controlled substances, which serve to increase an offender's punishment, are considered elements of the criminal charge for the purpose of determin…
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“Because we conclude that the trial court did not commit a scoresheet error, we affirm.”
States the court's conclusion regarding the sentencing scoresheet and the ultimate decision to affirm.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeffrey Louis Smith was found guilty by a jury of fleeing police and resisting arrest without violence. At sentencing, the trial court scored two of S…
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.
SCALES, J.
After a jury found appellant Jeffrey Louis Smith guilty of fleeing or attempting to elude police officers and of resisting arrest without violence,1 the trial court sentenced Smith, respectively, to 65.4 months and 364 days in prison, to be served concurrently. Smith contends that the trial court, in determining this sentence, scored two of his past federal convictions incorrectly. Because we conclude that the trial court did not commit a scoresheet error, we affirm.
In 1989, Smith was convicted in the U. S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia of three counts related to his possession and distribution of approximately a kilogram of cocaine.2 Sentencing guideline scoresheets reflect an offender’s criminal history. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.701(b)(4). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5)(B) provides that, for scoring a prior federal conviction, the trial court should look to an analogous or parallel state statute. The trial court found section 893.135(1)(b)1.c. of the Florida Statutes to be analogous to 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Section 893.135(1)(b)1.c. makes the possession or distribution of cocaine in the quantity range of 400 grams to less than 150 kilograms a first-degree felony. The quantity range of both this state statute (400 grams to 150 kilograms) and the federal statute (500 grams or more) capture Smith’s possession of approximately a kilogram in the federal case. These quantity ranges are elements of the criminal charge because they serve to increase an offender’s punishment. U.S. v. Cotchery, 406 F. Supp. 3d 1215, 1230 (N.D. Ala. 2019); see Dautel v. State, 658 So. 2d 88, 91 (Fla. 1995) (holding that, for calculating sentencing guidelines scoresheet points, only the elements of the prior crime charged are considered in determining the analogous Florida statute).
Accordingly, we discern no error in the trial court’s scoring of Smith’s federal convictions and his resulting prison sentence in this case.
Affirmed.