ALMERTIS STEPHENS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court affirmed that trial courts are not required to defer sentencing and use a single scoresheet for all pending cases in a county, subject to certain exceptions.
Trial courts are not obligated to assure that all of a defendant's pending cases in a county are disposed of using one scoresheet or to defer sentencing until all cases are adjudicated.
[1] Trial courts are not required to defer sentencing or use a single scoresheet for all pending cases in a county unless circumstances warrant such consolidation.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStephens had multiple cases pending in a particular county and sought to have them all sentenced using a single scoresheet with deferral of sentencing…
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 Unreasonable Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Stephens v. State, 559 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), which certified the following question of great public importance:
WHETHER IT IS THE TRIAL COURT’S DUTY TO ASSURE THAT ALL OF A DEFENDANT’S CASES PENDING IN A PARTICULAR COUNTY AT THE TIME OF THAT DEFENDANT’S FIRST SENTENCING HEARING ARE DISPOSED OF USING ONE SCORE-SHEET, INCLUDING DEFERRAL OF SENTENCING UNTIL ALL OF THE PENDING CASES HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED UNLESS THIS WOULD CAUSE UNREASONABLE DELAY OR WOULD UNDULY BURDEN THE COURT OR PREJUDICE THE DEFENDANT?
Id. at 691-92. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The district court acknowledged that this was the same question certified in Clark v. State, 519 So. 2d 1095, 1097-98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In our review of that case we have answered this question in the negative subject to certain exceptions not relevant here. Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla.1991). Because the result reached by the district court on this issue is in harmony with our opinion in Clark, it is approved to this extent. We do not reach the other issue raised by the parties, which lies beyond the scope of the certified question.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., and EHRLICH, Senior Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (34 total)
-
Files v. State, 613 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 1992)…felony conviction was a valid reason for exercising a peremptory challenge. Roundtree v. State, 546 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1989); Tillman v. State, 522 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1988); Stephens v. State, 559 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), approved on other grounds, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla.1991); Knight [v. State, 559 So. 2d 327] (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 574 So. 2d 141 (Fla.1990). Files, 586 So. 2d at 356 (footnote omitted). As to the second prospective juror, Files had not only challenged the reasons offered for that…
-
Cabrera v. State, 576 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…cored only once for the single indictment or information, regardless of the number of counts therein. If two or more indictments or in-formations are brought on for simultaneous sentencing, only a single scoresheet will be prepared. Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387, 1389-91 (Fla.1991); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d). The scoresheet only allows legal constraint points to be assessed once, even though they could be assessed for each separate information or indictment if there were separate sentencings.2 Under existing s…
-
State v. Tito, 616 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1993)….” Thus, the state correctly points out that a two-cell bump-up may be used for the first conviction. Both Tito and the state argue that the district court’s holding that the original scoresheets should have been used conflicts with Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla.1991). We agree. In Clark we held that it would be proper to use a single scoresheet for sentences imposed on the same day by different judges. In State v. Stafford, 593 So. 2d 496 (Fla.1992), however, we held that when probation violation case…
Previewing 3 of 34 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 1991)
- Waldon v. State, 559 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Clark v. State, 519 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)