SHIRLEY ANN RICHARDSON, 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.
Richardson appealed her sentences for multiple offenses, including new crimes and sentences imposed after revocation of probation and community control. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing due to the trial court's failure to use a comprehensive current sentencing guidelines scoresheet covering all pending offenses, and for imposing an illegal sentence exceeding statutory maximums.
The trial court was mandatory required to prepare a current guidelines scoresheet covering all offenses pending for sentencing simultaneously, and failure to do so necessitates resentencing. Additionally, the 257-day sentence for culpable negligence exceeds the statutory maximum of 60 days and is therefore illegal, requiring resentencing within statutory limits.
[1] A current guidelines scoresheet covering all pending offenses is required when multiple offenses are before the court for sentencing at the same time.
[2] A mandatory requirement to use a guidelines scoresheet necessitates resentencing, even in the absence of an objection below.
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“Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)(1) thus requires a current guidelines scoresheet covering all offenses... the court's obligation to use a guidelines score-sheet in connection with guidelines sentencing is a mandatory requirement which necessitates resentencing in this case.”
Establishes that using a comprehensive current scoresheet for all pending offenses is mandatory and failure to do so requires remand for resentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichardson was sentenced for several new offenses and for prior offenses after her probation and community control were revoked. The trial court had 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 Retroactive Application Of Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of sentences imposed for several new offenses and, after the revocation of probations and community control, for several prior offenses. Sentencing guidelines scoresheets had been previously prepared for some of the earlier offenses when appellant was placed on probation and community control, and the court did not utilize a new and comprehensive scoresheet when imposing the challenged sentences. The various offenses were all pending before the court for sentencing at the same time, and Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)(1) thus requires a current guidelines scoresheet covering all offenses. See Earp v. State, 522 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Bembow v. State, 520 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); cf., Peters v. State, 531 So. 2d 121 (Fla.1988).
Appellant interposed no objection below, but the court’s obligation to use a guidelines score-sheet in connection with guidelines sentencing is a mandatory requirement which necessitates resentencing in this case.
The sentences imposed included a 257-day term of incarceration for the offense of culpable negligence. This offense was predicated upon the exposure of another person to personal injury and constitutes a second degree misdemeanor under section 784.05(1), Florida Statutes, punishable by a maximum term of incarceration for 60 days. See section 775.082(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Although the sentence does not extend appellant’s actual incarceration, due to a corresponding jail time credit of 257 days, it is an illegal sentence insofar as it exceeds the maximum statutory term. On remand appellant should be sentenced within the statutory maximum for this offense.
The parties also question the court’s authority to exceed the recommended guidelines sentence without providing written reasons. While Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14) allows a one cell increase upon the revocation of probation or community control, without the necessity of written reasons, this provision may not be retroactively applied. See Griffin v. State, 519 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
The opinion in Griffin does not indicate the date of the primary scored offense, but some of the offenses involved therein were committed before the 1985 amendment by which a one cell increase is now allowed. Some of appellant’s offenses were also committed before the effective date of this amendment, and on resentencing the amended rule may be applied only if the primary scored of fense is one which occurred after the effective date of the amendment.
The challenged sentences are vacated and the cause is remanded for resentencing.
ERVIN and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tito v. State, 593 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…t for sentencing at the same time. This is a mandatory requirement, Bembow v. State, 520 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and is not waived if the defendant raises no objection to the trial court’s failure to use a new scoresheet. Richardson v. State, 564 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The supreme court, in Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla.1991), recognized the requirement that the trial court must utilize a single scoresheet for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. Clark, however, then de…
Authorities Cited
- Peters v. State, 531 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1988)
- Griffin v. State, 519 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Bembow v. State, 520 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Earp v. State, 522 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)