SCOTT KEVIN BRADY, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence that exceeded the applicable sentencing guidelines without providing departure reasons, and that the offenses were committed before the permitted range was in effect.
Brady was sentenced to five years imprisonment for grand theft and six months for uttering a forged instrument, exceeding the sentencing guidelines ra…
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 Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Scott Kevin Brady appeals the summary denial of his timely filed postconviction relief motion. Only one of his claims merits consideration.
Brady alleges that he was given an illegal sentence that exceeded the guidelines by two cell ranges. It appears that he is correct. Brady had been placed on community control for the offenses of grand theft and uttering a forged instrument, third degree felonies, which occurred in March 1988. Brady subsequently violated the community control and appeared before the circuit court for sentencing. The guidelines scoresheet indicates that the guidelines sentencing range was 2½ to 3½ years. A one-cell increase for the violation of community control placed the range at 3½ to 4½ years. However, the trial court sentenced Brady in excess of the guidelines to five years imprisonment on the grand theft charge followed by six months consecutive imprisonment for the uttering offense. No departure reasons were given. It appears that the court believed the sentence was permissible as within the permitted range, however, this was error as the crimes were committed before the permitted range was in effect. Burnett v. State, 584 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
While we agree that the appellant is not entitled to relief of the other grounds raised in his motion, we reverse the denial of the appellant’s motion on the ground discussed above. We remand to the trial court with directions to sentence the appellant in accordance with the guidelines in effect at the time Brady’s offenses were committed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nowlin v. State, 639 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…credit, determinable from records readily available to the court, result in illegal sentences); Ospina v. State, 579 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (sentence based on guidelines that had not been constitutionally enacted); Bradley [Brady] v. State, 587 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (sentence imposed under statute establishing a permissive range when offense alleged in information occurred prior to the effective date of the sentencing statute). See also Jones v. State [635 So. 2d 41], 19 Fla.L. Weekly D167 (F…
-
Strickland v. State, 596 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ceed the one-cell increase for a probation revocation. See Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990). Moreover the trial court must apply the guidelines in effect at the time of the offenses for which the appellant is being sentenced. Brady v. State, 587 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Because the appellant’s offenses were committed before July 1, 1988, they were not subject to guideline amendments enacted in chapter 88-131, section 1, Laws of Florida. Thus upon resentencing, the permitted range of the guidelin…
-
Brown v. State, 633 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…rs in jail credit, determinable from records readily available to the court, result in illegal sentences); Ospina v. State, 579 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (sentence based on guidelines that had not been constitutionally enacted); Brady v. State, 587 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (sentenced imposed under statute establishing a permissive range when offense alleged in information occurred prior to the effective date of the sentencing statute). See also Jones v. State, — So. 2d — 19 Fla.L.Weekly D167 (Fla. 1…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burnett v. State, 584 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)