ROBERT WILLIAMS, 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 departure sentence was improper because it was imposed without reference to an accurate scoresheet and based on insufficient reasons.
Robert Williams appealed a departure sentence imposed after revocation of probation. The sentencing hearing revealed confusion regarding the appropria…
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 Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Robert Williams has appealed from a departure sentence imposed following revocation of probation. Because we perceive a multitude of problems in this case, we reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
First, the trial court apparently sentenced Williams without reference to an accurate scoresheet. The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects nothing but confusion as to the appropriate guidelines range, and it is apparent that the prosecutor had not prepared a scoresheet accurately documenting Williams’ prior convictions.
The trial court’s error in sentencing Williams without a correct scoresheet was compounded by its preparation of two orders with reasons for exceeding the guidelines, one of which predated the actual sentencing. The contemporaneously filed order contains three reasons for departure, none of which is sufficient: the fact that Williams sold cocaine while on probation, that he was not amenable to probation, and that he engaged in a persistent pattern of criminal conduct. An upward departure cannot be based on factors related to the criminal act forming the basis for the violation. Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989). The fact that Williams was unsuccessful in completing probation relates to his successive violations, the penalty for which is a one-cell bump for each violation. Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992); Bowen v. State, 606 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Finally, his “continuing and persistent pattern of criminal activity” is a reason related to his record and is taken into account in computing the guidelines sentence.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castro v. State, 708 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…re of the current offense to bump appellant’s sentence to fifteen years. The reasons given for the bump were clearly due to the new offense, and this is not permissible. See Routenberg v. State, 677 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Williams v. State, 614 So. 2d 642, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Moreover, since aggravated assault is a third degree felony, with a maximum penalty of five years, a fifteen-year sentence was impermissible. We reverse and remand appellant’s sentence for resentencing within the guidelines.…
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1989)
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Wallace, 606 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Bowen v. State, 606 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)