GERALD HARRIS, 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.
Harris appealed his resentencing after this court previously reversed his robbery conviction and remanded for resentencing within sentencing guidelines. The court held that the trial court erred by using separate sentencing scoresheets for two pending cases rather than a single consolidated scoresheet as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1).
The trial court erred in using separate scoresheets for the two pending cases. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1) requires one guideline scoresheet for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. Both cases were pending because the finality of sentencing in the remanded case awaited determination by the appellate court, and the distinction between initial sentencing and resentencing is immaterial.
[1] A single guideline scoresheet must be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.
[2] An offense is pending for guidelines sentencing purposes when a verdict or plea of guilty or nolo contendere has been obtained.
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“One guideline scoresheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.”
This establishes the mandatory rule requiring consolidated sentencing 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 intelligenceHarris was convicted by jury of burglary and sexual battery in one case and convicted in another case. On remand for resentencing following Harris's p…
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 Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises two points on appeal, one of which we find to have merit and require discussion. This court reversed appellant’s conviction on robbery and affirmed his convictions on burglary and sexual battery but reversed the sentences thereon in Harris v. State, 589 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The trial court was directed on remand to resentence appellant within the guidelines, as this court found the trial court had erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines.
When appellant appeared for resentencing, the trial court also had before it appellant’s sentencing in another case in which a jury had convicted appellant. Appellant objected to the trial court’s use of separate scoresheets for the two cases, but the trial court rejected his argument. This rejection was harmful error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand again, this time with direction to use the same scoresheet for both cases.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1) provides in pertinent part as follows:
One guideline scoresheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.
An offense is generally not pending for guidelines sentencing purposes unless a verdict or plea of guilty or nolo contendere has been obtained, Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla.1991); Combs v. State, 604 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 2 (Fla.1993). Both of the cases involving appellant were pending before the trial court when he appeared. In the instant case this court had reversed the sentences and remanded for resentencing. “Pending” means “begun but not yet completed; during; before the completion of; prior to the completion of; unsettled; undetermined; in process of settlement or adjustment. Awaiting an occurrence or conclusion of action, period of continuance or indeterminacy.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1134 (6th ed. 1990). The instant case meets this definition because finality of the sentence had been awaiting this court’s determination in the earlier appeal. Hence, while unconcluded the action is still pending.
A trial court errs in failing to use a single scoresheet for separate cases in which sentencing is pending, notwithstanding that the offenses are too unrelated to allow consolidation or joinder at trial. Gallagher v. State, 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 resentencing, 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reed v. State, 649 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1995)…GRIMES, Chief Justice. We review Reed v. State, 619 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), in which the court affirmed Reed’s conviction on the authority of State v. Dorian, 619 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (en banc), quashed, 642 So. 2d 1359 (Fla.1994). Because Dorian was pending in this Court and was disapproved in…
-
State v. Jovanek Miller, 743 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…e court at the time of sentencing. We agree. Because both of Miller’s offenses fell under the same version of the sentencing guidelines, the trial court should have utilized one guideline scoresheet. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(2); Harris v. State, 619 So. 2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing. WARNER, C.J., FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Harris v. State, 653 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…currently with one another, but consecutively to the seventeen year sentence from case number 88-16248. In other words, appellant was sentenced to a total of thirty-nine years. These sentences were the subject of appellate review in Harris v. State, 619 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (Harris II). In Harris II appellant complained that the trial court erred in using two separate score-sheets in sentencing him for the two cases. This court agreed. Finding the error harmful, we reversed and remanded with direct…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gallagher v. State, 476 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 1991)
- Almertis Stephens v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 1991)
- O'Connor v. State, 590 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Amerivend Corp. & Wash-Bowl, Inc. v. RCA Invs., Inc., 589 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Alvarez v. State, 600 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Glennis Combs v. State, 604 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)