VASTEN E. BLAIR, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal initially affirmed Blair's convictions for armed robbery and first-degree murder but found reversible error in consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, remanding for resentencing. The Florida Supreme Court accepted review, vacated the resentencing portion of the DCA opinion, and held that the trial court cannot impose a new sentence exceeding the sentencing guidelines.
The consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were improper because the offenses arose from a single continuous criminal episode and the written order for departure from guidelines was not timely filed. On remand, the trial court may not impose a new sentence that exceeds the sentencing guidelines.
[1] A trial court may not impose a new sentence that exceeds the sentencing guidelines.
[2] Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences are improper when offenses arise from a single continuous criminal episode.
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“the trial court did not prepare the written order listing the reason for departure until after the hearing, and the order was not filed until five days after the hearing”
Establishes the procedural defect in the sentencing order that constituted reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlair was convicted of armed robbery and first-degree murder. The trial court imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for these offenses, whic…
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 Consecutive Mandatory Minimum Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed our opinion in Blair v. State, 559 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), pursuant to its discretionary review power. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution; 598 So. 2d 1068 (Fla.1992).
In Blair, we affirmed appellant’s judgment of guilt on counts of armed robbery and first-degree murder. We held the trial court’s departure from the recommended guidelines sentence on the armed robbery count was proper, based on an escalating pattern of criminality. We found reversible error, however, in the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, as the evidence established the two offenses arose from a single continuous criminal episode, the trial court did not prepare the written order listing the reason for departure until after the hearing, and the order was not filed until five days after the hearing. The cause was remanded for resentencing, with instructions that any mandatory minimum sentences be imposed concurrently, and that the written order listing the reason for any departure from the sentencing guidelines be made pursuant to the mandate of Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1989).
See 559 So. 2d at 350.
The version of Bee on which we relied was subsequently withdrawn by the supreme court, pursuant to a petition for rehearing, and superseded by 565 So. 2d 1329, 1330 (Fla.1990). See State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706, 707 (Fla.1991). The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction of the instant case, based on a conflict with Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1992). Our vacating of Blair’s sentence and remanding for resentencing were approved, based on the interpretation of Ree presented in Smith. See 598 So. 2d at 1068.
However, the supreme court determined that, under the rationale of Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990), and Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987), the trial court may not impose a new sentence that exceeds the guidelines. 598 So. 2d at 1068. Our decision was quashed to the extent that it permits a resentencing above the guidelines.
Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida filed with this court, our original opinion, filed April 4, 1990, is set aside to the extent that it permits a resen- tencing above the guidelines, and the opinion and judgment of the supreme court, filed April 2, 1992, are adopted as this court’s opinion and judgment, and same shall accompany our mandate to the circuit court of Santa Rosa County.
WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clenney Terrell Davis v. State, 606 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…A 1992); Vara v. State, 575 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We vacate the unauthorized 15-year departure sentence and remand for the trial court to resentence Appellant within the guidelines. Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990); Blair v. State, 601 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (opinion on mandate). The trial court’s decision whether to make [*472] the sentence consecutive or concurrent is governed by section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1989). We affirm the other sentences. AFFIRMED in part, and VACAT…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- REE v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1990)
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1991)
- Vasten E. Blair v. State, 598 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1992)
- Vasten E. Blair v. State, 559 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)