LEROY OWENS STENNIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that a sentence enhanced beyond the permitted range must be accompanied by a written statement explaining the departure, and a discrepancy between the judgment and scoresheet must be corrected.
The defendant's sentence was enhanced without a written statement explaining the upward departure from the guidelines. There was also a discrepancy be…
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 Felony Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant’s sentence must be reversed because the sentence was enhanced to eleven and one-half years incarceration without any written statement accompanying it explaining the upward departure from the permitted range of between four and one-half to seven years incarceration. Consequently, the defendant's sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for proper resentencing within the guidelines. Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990); Guide v. State, 549 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
We note a discrepancy between the offense shown on the judgment and the offense shown on the scoresheet. Apparently, defendant’s aggravated assault conviction was enhanced to a second-degree felony by virtue of section 784.07, Florida Statutes (1988). We direct the trial court to correct the judgment at resentencing because of the apparent discrepancy between the judgment and the scoresheet.
It is unnecessary to reach the defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a new trial because the point was not preserved by objection in the trial court.
We certify the following question of great public importance:
SHOULD POPE V. STATE BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO SENTENCES IMPOSED PRIOR TO APRIL 26, 1990?
State v. Smith, 15 F.L.W. D1520 (Fla. 3d DCA June 5, 1990), review granted, No. 76,235 (Fla. July 5, 1990).
Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction is affirmed, but his sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded for resentencing within the guidelines,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ulysses Crenshaw v. State, 570 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. The appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied. The State’s motion to certify the question certified in Stennis v. State, 567 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), is granted. [*350] SHOULD POPE v. STATE BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO SENTENCES IMPOSED PRIOR TO APRIL 26, 1990?…
-
Magrans v. State, 584 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…TO APRIL 26, 1990? See Crenshaw v. State, 570 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Fonseca v. State, 570 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); State v. Reliford, 568 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review dismissed, 576 So. 2d 290 (Fla.1991); Stennis v. State, 567 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.3d DCA 1990); Perez v. State, 566 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); and State v. Whipple, 15 F.L.W. D1916 (Fla. 3d DCA July 24, 1990). It may be that the pendency of the certified question in the above cases in the Supreme Court of Florida will cr…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Carabetta v. State, 549 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Guide v. State, 549 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)