JOHN D. FELTY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that sentencing guidelines requiring a choice between community control or incarceration make those alternatives mutually exclusive, prohibiting courts from imposing both sanctions even if the combined length does not exceed the maximum guideline range.
No. The sentencing guidelines specify incarceration or community control as mutually exclusive alternatives, and courts cannot impose both sanctions regardless of whether the combined length stays within the maximum guideline range.
[1] Where sentencing guidelines specify incarceration or community control, these alternatives are mutually exclusive.
[2] A defendant cannot be sentenced to both imprisonment and community control when the guidelines offer these as alternative sentencing options, absent reasons for departure…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“where the sentencing guidelines specify incarceration or community control, these alternatives are mutually exclusive”
States the core holding that community control and incarceration cannot be combined as sanctions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFelty was convicted of vehicular homicide and scored in a permitted guideline range of community control or one to twelve years' incarceration. The tr…
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 Reason for Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review Felty v. State, 616 So. 2d 88, 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), in which the court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
WHERE A DEFENDANT SCORES IN A PERMITTED RANGE OF COMMUNITY CONTROL OR INCARCERATION, MAY THE DEFENDANT BE SENTENCED TO A COMBINATION OF COMMUNITY CONTROL AND INCARCERATION SO LONG AS THE LENGTH OF THE TOTAL COMBINED SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION AND COMMUNITY CONTROL DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM GUIDELINES INCARCERATIVE SENTENCE PERMITTED?
We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
Felty was convicted of vehicular homicide. The guidelines scoresheet placed him in a permitted range of community control or one to twelve years’ incarceration. He was sentenced to eight and one-half years in prison to be followed by one and one-half years’ community control and five years’ probation. On appeal, Felty argued that under the rationale of State v. VanKooten, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1988), he could not be sentenced to both imprisonment and community control in the absence of reasons for departure. The court below rejected Felty’s contention and approved his sentence.1
In VanKooten, the trial judge imposed a prison sentence of thirty months, followed by two years’ community control and ten and one-half years of probation without stating reasons for departure. 512 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), approved, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1988). This Court held that the combined sentence was illegal because the presumptive guideline range specified community control or 'twelve to thirty months’ incarceration. VanKooten, 522 So. 2d at 831.
The court below construed the VanKooten proscription as applicable only where the combined sentences of imprisonment and community control exceeded the maximum period of incarceration permitted under the guidelines. Collins v. State, 596 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Ewing v. State, 526 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In this case, Felty’s combined sentences of imprisonment and community control did not exceed the permitted range of the sentencing guidelines.
While there is no doubt that the length of the combined sentences of imprisonment and community control exceeded the guideline range in VanKooten, this was not the basis upon which the ease was decided. In our opinion, we rejected the rationale of Francis v. State, 487 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), which held that the use of the word “or” in the guideline provision for “community control or twelve to thirty monthst’] incarceration” was not intended to make the alternatives mutually exclusive but rather was designed to permit the imposition of either or both sanctions. VanKooten, 522 So. 2d at 881. We held that the sentencing guidelines clearly stated that the presumptive sentence was community control or incarceration and that any change must'occur through appropriate legislative and court rule action. Id. There is nothing in our opinion which suggests that our holding would have been different if the combined sentences of imprisonment and community control had not exceeded the presumptive range.
We reaffirm our opinion in VanKoo-ten that where the sentencing guidelines specify incarceration or community control, these alternatives are mutually exclusive. We disapprove Collins and Ewing and quash the decision below.2
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. GRIMES, J., concurs in result only with an opinion.
. A special condition of probation was stricken because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing or allowed by statute.
. See State v. Davis, 630 So. 2d 1059 (Fla.1994), in which we applied the same rationale to decide a similar, though not identical, issue.
GRIMES, Justice,
concurring in result only.
I cannot understand why the guidelines range which specifies incarceration or community control does not give the trial judge the flexibility of combining the two options as long as the total sentence does not exceed the permitted range. In fact, the VanKooten rule has the potential of influencing judges to impose longer prison sentences if they cannot combine shorter ones with periods of community control. I recommend that the necessary steps be taken to amend the guidelines so as to permit combined sentences of incarceration and community control. I concur in the decision in this ease only because of the precedent of VanKooten.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Brown v. State, 659 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…n this case, defendant’s allegation of illegality stems solely from the fact that the original sentence provided for incarceration, followed by community control, followed by probation, and thus constituted a departure sentence under Felty v. State, 630 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1994). There is no allegation that the combined sentence of incarceration and community control exceeded the permissible guidelines range. However, since the guidelines specify incarceration or community control, our supreme court has held that…1 / 2
-
Hause v. State, 643 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…tions, which include incarceration, jail time, and community control, are disjunctive sentences, and thus combining any or all of them creates a departure sentence for which written reasons must be provided. Id. at 1060. Similarly in Felty v. State, 630 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1994), the supreme court reaffirmed VanKooten and held that “where the sentencing guidelines specify incarceration or community control, these alternatives are mutually exclusive.” Id. at 1093. Although the sentencing guidelines do not express…
-
Reginell Leetrez Gilyard v. State, 636 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ceration and community control, he argues each of these sentences is illegal since the trial court filed no written reasons. During the pendency of this appeal our supreme court decided State v. Davis, 630 So. 2d 1059 (Fla.1994), and Felty v. State, 630 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1994). In these eases the court found it necessary to reaffirm the rule in VanKooten because of the varying interpretations the district courts had given it. See Collins v. State, 596 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), disapproved in State v. Dav…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Davis, 630 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. VanKOOTEN, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Bodine, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1988)
- Francis v. State, 487 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Keidrick Ewing v. State, 526 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Collins v. State, 596 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- State v. Demas, 512 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- VanKOOTEN v. State, 512 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Felty v. State, 616 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)