WILLIAM DOYLE A/K/A BILL JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 reversed and remanded because the trial court erred in using separate sentencing scoresheets for two consolidated cases and because the judgment incorrectly reflected a plea to section 784.07 rather than section 784.021.
A trial court errs by utilizing separate sentencing scoresheets when sentencing a defendant in consolidated cases; the judgment must be corrected to reflect the defendant's actual plea.
[1] A trial court errs in imposing sentences in consolidated cases by utilizing separate sentencing scoresheets rather than a single appropriate guideline scoresheet.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant William Doyle pleaded nolo contendere and was sentenced on March 22, 1994 in two consolidated cases using separate sentencing scoresheets, t…
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 Rule 3.800 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
By this consolidated appeal defendant seeks review of the trial court’s summary denial of a Rule 3.800 motion to correct an illegal sentence, and seeks to correct his judgment and sentence to reflect that he plead nolo contendere to a violation of section 784.021, Florida Statutes, rather than a violation of section 784.07, Florida Statutes, as reflected in the final judgment.
Upon confession of error by the state we return this case to the trial court with directions to correct defendant’s judgment to reflect that defendant plead nolo contendere to a violation of section 784.021, Florida Statutes, rather than a violation of section 784.07, Florida Statutes.
Although defendant has apparently abandoned, by failing to raise any legal argument, his appeal of the trial court’s denial of his Rule 3.800 motion, we address same on the grounds that this court may, sua sponte, address error obvious on the face of the record. See Stites v. State, 570 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Goss v. State, 398 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
On March 22, 1994, the trial court sentenced defendant in two cases, PK93-353-CF-A and PK-94 — 44-CF-A. The sentences imposed on defendant were based upon separate scoresheets. The trial court erred in utilizing separate scoresheets when sentencing defendant in these cases. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(1); Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla.1991); Render v. State; 516 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). On remand the trial court shall sentence defendant using the appropriate guideline scoresheet.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen, 659 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1995)…hat it was entered pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere. Accord Doney v. State, 648 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (final judgment of conviction entered pursuant to plea of nolo contendere), review denied, 659 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1995); Doyle v. State, 644 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (same); Wheatley v. State, 629 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (same). A “final judgment” is not exempt from the plain language of the estoppel statute simply because it was entered pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere. Moreover,…
-
Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…cable trust for the benefit of the son and cannot be reached by the husband. See generally Akers v. Akers, 582 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 592 So. 2d 679 (Fla.1991); and Knecht v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993), rev. denied, 644 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1994). The trial court also indicated the amount as $25,-000 instead of $24,000, which should be corrected. Burk v. Burk, 666 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The husband’s expenditure of $25,000 from this fund for redecorating his office shoul…
-
Omega Allen v. State, 664 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…g for all felonies, except capital felonies, committed on or after January 1, 1994”); the guidelines scoresheet in effect in 1994, therefore, had to be utilized for this offense. Wood v. State, 655 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); of. Doyle v. State, 644 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The defendant relies on Section 921.001(4)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (1993), which provides that a defendant has the option to elect whether to be sentenced under the 1983 or the 1994 sentencing guidelines for an offense committe…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 1991)
- Almertis Stephens v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 1991)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Stowell, 398 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Render v. State, 516 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Goss v. State, 398 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Morris v. State, 570 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)