CHARLES HOWARD GIPSON, 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.
A guidelines maximum sentence imposed consecutively with a habitual offender sentence does not constitute a departure requiring written justification.
Gipson was convicted of drug crimes and sentenced to consecutive guidelines maximum and habitual felony offender terms. The district court affirmed, r…
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 Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review Gipson v. State, 603 So. 2d 64 (Fla.2d DCA 1992), which relied on Boomer v. State, 596 So. 2d 730 (Fla.2d DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction. Art V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve Gipson.
Gipson was convicted of numerous drug-related crimes and sentenced to two concurrent guidelines maximum sentences to be served consecutively with his several habitual felony offender terms, which were in turn imposed consecutively. The district court affirmed in a one-sentence opinion, citing to Boomer, wherein the second district ruled that a guidelines maximum sentence ordered to be served consecutively with a capital sentence does not constitute a departure requiring written justification. The court in Gipson cited as conflicting authority Wood v. State, 593 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), a fifth district case wherein the court ruled that a guidelines maximum sentence imposed consecutively with an habitual offender sentence constitutes a departure.
Subsequent to issuance of Gipson, this Court approved Boomer, reasoning that because capital felonies are excluded from the sentencing guidelines scheme they are not subject to guidelines restrictions including the one barring imposition of consecutive maximum terms. See Boomer v. State, 616 So. 2d 991 (Fla.1993). We note that habitual offender sentences are similarly excluded from the guidelines scheme:
A sentence imposed under this [habitual offender] section shall not be subject to the provisions of s. 921.001 [the sentencing guidelines].
Section 775.084(4)(e), Fla.Stat. (1991). Accordingly, we hold that where a court imposes a guidelines maximum sentence to be served consecutively with an habitual offender sentence the resulting term does not constitute a guidelines departure requiring written justification.
Based on the foregoing, we approve Gip-son and disapprove Wood.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Matthews, 891 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2004)…sentencing expressly states that a sentence imposed under the habitual offender statute is not subject to the sentencing guidelines. See § 775.084(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (1989); Disbrow v. State, 642 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla.1994); see also Gipson v. State, 616 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla.1993). As this Court has recognized, “in enacting subsection (4)(e) in 1988 the legislature was attempting to sever application of the habitual offender statute from the sentencing guidelines.” Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267, 270 (Fla.19…
-
Lucas v. State, 630 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ence imposed upon him for sexual battery (a life felony) became a departure sentence when it was imposed to run consecutively to the habitual violent felony offender sentences which were also imposed. This issue is now controlled by Gipson v. State, 616 So. 2d 992 (Fla.1993), in which the court held that imposing a guidelines maximum sentence to run consecutively to an habitual offender sentence does not result in a guidelines departure. Finally, appellant argues that it was error to impose consecutive habit…
-
Nathan v. State, 689 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…otal sentence (guidelines and habitual-ized sentences) does not exceed the original sentence of forty years contemplated by the trial court and appellant is given credit for the prison time already served on the burglary charge. See Gipson v. State, 616 So. 2d 992 (Fla.1993) and Blackshear v. State, 531 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1988).…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 593 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Boomer v. State, 596 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Boomer v. State, 616 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1993)
- Gipson v. State, 603 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- In the Interest of R.M. v. State, 603 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)