WILLIE WATSON, III, 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.
Willie Watson III appeals his sentences in thirteen felony cases. The appellate court affirms his convictions but reverses the sentences due to errors in imposing consecutive habitual offender sentences and in calculating sentencing guidelines scoresheets that improperly included habitualized offenses.
Consecutive habitual offender sentences for multiple offenses committed during a single criminal episode must run concurrently absent facts proving separate criminal episodes. Additionally, sentencing guidelines scoresheets must not include a habitualized offense as either the primary offense or as an additional offense at conviction.
[1] Habitual offender sentences for multiple offenses committed during a single criminal episode must run concurrently, absent facts proving separate criminal episodes.
[2] A scoresheet is erroneous if it includes points for offenses on which the defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender.
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“habitual offender sentences for multiple offenses committed during a single criminal episode must run concurrently”
Establishes the core holding regarding consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing under Hale v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson was convicted in thirteen felony cases involving twenty-seven counts across multiple circuit court case numbers. In one case, he received three…
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 Scoresheet Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Willie Watson, III, appeals the sentences imposed in thirteen felony cases involving twenty-seven counts.1 He presents no errors related to his convictions and we affirm. However, because Watson’s sentences contain errors, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing. Circuit court case no. 92-05231 is a three count information on which Watson was sentenced to three consecutive habitual offender terms in prison. He argues that pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), habitual offender sentences for multiple offenses committed during a single criminal episode must run concurrently. The record does not contain facts that would support consecutive sentences. Therefore, these sentences are reversed and remanded for resentencing. On remand, if the state presents facts to prove separate criminal episodes, consecutive sentences may again be imposed. If the state is unable to prove separate episodes, the sentencing court must impose concurrent habitual offender sentences.
Watson also contends that the guidelines scoresheet used in several cases2 is erroneous for two reasons. First, the primary offense was one for which Watson received a habitual offender sentence. Second, the scoresheet included points for offenses on which Watson was sentenced as a habitual offender.3 He is correct. See Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA1992) (error to include habitualized offense as either the primary offense at conviction or as an additional offense at conviction). Therefore, we reverse the guidelines sentences and remand for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
RYDER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur. . Circuit court case numbers CF92-04650, CF92-05073, CF92-05074, CF92-05075, CF92- 05076, CF92-5079, CF92-05080, CF92-05081, CF92-05231, CF92-05615, CF92-05616, CF92-05617, and CF92-05618.
. Cases involving guidelines sentences: Circuit court case numbers CF92-05073, CF92-05074, CF92-05075, CF92-05076, CF92-05079, CF92-05080, CF92-05081, CF92-05614, CF92-05615, CF92-05616, CF92-05617 and CF92-05618. Note that CF92-05614 was not appealed.
. Cases involving habitual offender sentences: Circuit court case numbers CF92-04650 and CF92-05231.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State, 703 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…n of a dangerous weapon as an additional offense. This charge, however, was nolle prossed by the state. The scoresheet also ineludes points for offenses on which Perez was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. This was error. See Watson v. State, 658 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The score-sheet should be corrected on remand. Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and QUINCE, JJ., concur.…
-
Dencil Lee Chapman v. State, 672 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…guidelines’ confusing scheme. The grand theft should be the “primary offense” so that the court can legally habitualize the appellant on the burglary conviction and thus maximize the penalty, as the judge wanted to do and should do. Watson v. State, 658 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The scoresheet should be redone and sentencing must be redone. On remand the court cannot depart for the reason that there is a pattern of escalating criminal behavior. The beha…
-
Joyce v. State, 713 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…rimes for which Joyce had been sentenced as a habitual offender. See Eblin v. State, 677 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We reverse his guidelines sentences and remand for resentencing under a corrected score- [*1054] sheet. See Watson v. State, 658 So. 2d 118, 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). PARKER, C.J., and RONDOLINO, ANTHONY, Associate Judge, concur. . The State has argued that the circuit court’s failure to follow the procedure in Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993), is not cognizable on direct a…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)