JOSE ALVAREZ, 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.
Jose Alvarez appealed sentences imposed across five criminal cases, arguing that the trial court violated Florida sentencing rules by failing to prepare a single consolidated sentencing scoresheet for all offenses pending simultaneously. The appellate court agreed and vacated all sentences for resentencing.
The trial court erred by failing to prepare one scoresheet for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. Because the burglary offense and the four probation violation cases were all pending for sentencing on May 1, 1991, the trial court was required to sentence appellant for all offenses at that time using a single scoresheet.
[1] A single scoresheet must be prepared for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing in a particular county at the time of the defendant's first sentencing heari…
[2] The sentencing court bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the accurate preparation of scoresheets.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This constituted error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d.l. which mandates that one scoresheet be prepared for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.”
Establishes the governing rule requiring consolidated scoresheets for all pending offenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlvarez was on probation in four cases when arrested for burglary in a fifth case. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled nolo contendere to the burgla…
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 Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
This is an appeal from sentences in five cases. We vacate appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing.
Appellant was on probation in circuit court case numbers CR 90-4926, CR 90-9933, CR 90-9634 and CR 90-8886 when he was arrested for a burglary offense as charged in circuit court case number CR 91-1157. Pursuant to á plea agreement, appellant pled nolo contendere to the burglary offense in CR 91-1157 and admitted violating his probation in the other four cases. On May 1, 1991 the trial court revoked appellant’s probation in each of the four violation of probation cases, and entered a guidelines sentence of five years imprisonment on the burglary offense in case number CR 91-1157. The sentencing scoresheet for case number CR 91-1157 failed to include the four violations of probation which were also pending for sentencing.
Nearly four months later, on August 29, 1991, a different judge placed appellant on consecutive probationary terms for the four probation violations, which terms totaled fifty years and ran consecutively to appellant’s sentence in case number CR 91-1157. There was no scoresheet prepared for the four violation of probation cases. This constituted error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d.l. which mandates that one scoresheet be prepared for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. Arnett v. State, 526 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). The Committee Note to rule 3.701 d.1.,1 which makes the sentencing court responsible for the accurate preparation of scoresheets, requires us to place the burden upon the trial court to assure that all of a defendant’s cases pending for sentencing in a particular county at the time of the defendant’s first sentencing hearing are disposed of using one scoresheet. Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Because the burglary offense in case number 91-1157 and the four violation of probation cases were pending for sentencing on May 1, 1991, the trial court was required to sentence appellant for all offenses at that time, utilizing a single score-sheet.
We vacate appellant’s sentences in all five cases and remand for resentencing utilizing a single scoresheet for all offenses involved in this matter. If, in resentencing, the trial court cannot abide by the prior plea agreement, appellant must be given the opportunity to withdraw his pleas.
Sentences VACATED; REMANDED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. . Committee Note to rule 3.701 d.l. provides: (d)(1) Ultimate responsibility for assuring that scoresheets are accurately prepared rests with the sentencing court. Due to ethical considerations, defense counsel may not be compelled to submit a scoresheet. Probation and parole officers may be directed to compile guidelines scoresheets only when a pre-sentence investigation has been ordered. The forms for calculating the guidelines are forms 3.988(a)-(i).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norris v. State, 659 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…994. Prior to 1 January 1994, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1) required that only one guidelines scoresheet “shall be utilized for each defendant covering ah offenses pending before the court for sentencing.” See also Alvarez v. State, 600 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); O’Connor v. State, 590 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). When the Florida Supreme Court adopted the 1994 amendments of the Sentencing GuideHnes Commission and the new rule of procedure3 to implement the new guidelines, however, t…
-
Harris v. State, 619 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…e, 476 So. 2d 754, 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The only distinction in the instant case is that one of the pending cases was before the trial court for resen-tencing, rather than sentencing—a distinction without a difference. See also Alvarez v. State, 600 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); O’Connor v. State, 590 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and HERSEY and STONE, JJ., concur.…
-
Snouffer v. State, 684 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…tion. Otherwise, it is the trial court’s burden “to assure that all of a defendant’s cases pending for sentencing in a particular county at the time of the defendant’s first sentencing hearing are disposed of using one scoresheet.” Alvarez v. State, 600 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Thus, we reverse Snouffer’s sentences and remand for resentencing under one scoresheet. Snouffer also contends that pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5)(F), the trial court erred in scoring his prior…
Authorities Cited
- Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Arnett v. State, 526 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)