BERNADETTE EADDY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
We affirm defendant’s convictions upon a holding that there was no abuse of discretion shown in the admission of the audiotape of the emergency telephone call.
We reverse the sentences imposed, however, because we conclude that the consecutive life sentences constitute a departure from the guidelines without contemporaneous written reasons. Defendant shall be resentenced within the guidelines.
Because these issues may arise at resentencing, we advise that the wrong sentencing scoresheet was used, this case requiring a category 1 scoresheet. At resentencing, the court should also consider Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), as to the propriety of scoring as additional offenses those convictions for which the court sentenced the defendant, during the same sentencing session, under the habitual felony offender statute.
Because of the comments made by the trial judge at sentencing, we direct that the resentencing be conducted by a different judge.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCES REVERSED.
GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frazier v. State, 762 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…The sentencing guidelines scoresheet shows on its face that two convictions for which Frazier was being sentenced as an habitual felony offender were" improperly scored as “additional offenses.” § 775.084(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (1993); Eaddy v. State, 626 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We reverse the denial of the motion on this point only and remand for resentencing based on a corrected score-sheet. We affirm the denial of relief on the remaining claims. S…
-
Sheffield v. State, 214 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…eet. See Olsen v. State, 791 So. 2d 558, 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Drayton v. State, 744 So. 2d 584, 585-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Alexander v. State, 680 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Byrd v. State, 643 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Eaddy v. State, 626 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93, 94-95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Silliker v. State, 598 So. 2d 133, 134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Wyche v. State, 576 So. 2d 884, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, counts I and II should not have been…
-
Hunter v. State, 732 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…poses habitual offender dispositions on some counts but guidelines dispositions on other counts. See id. at 94-95; see also Alexander v. State, 680 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Chapman v. State, 672 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Eaddy v. State, 626 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).* The logic of Ricardo is apparently that it would unfairly increase the permitted sentence for the guidelines sentences if simultaneously-sentenced habitualized offenses are counted as the primary offense, or additional offenses…
Authorities Cited
- Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)