VERNON SIMMONS, 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.
Defendant appealed sentences for three new felony offenses and violations of probation on two prior cases. The court found error in how the trial court sentenced the defendant for probation violations by improperly including habitual offender convictions on a single sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
The court held that it was error to use a single scoresheet including habitual offender convictions when sentencing for probation violations, as habitual offender convictions may not be included on sentencing guidelines scoresheets. On remand, the trial court must use the original scoresheet with a one-cell bump for the probation violation.
[1] Habitual offender convictions may not be included on a sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
[2] When a defendant is sentenced for a new felony and a violation of probation grounded upon that new felony, a single scoresheet may be used if the defendant is not sentenc…
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“Because the defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender on the new offenses, it was error to utilize a single score-sheet that included these convictions.”
Establishes the core holding that habitual offender convictions cannot be included on a single sentencing guidelines scoresheet used for probation violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was sentenced at a single hearing for three new offenses, for which he was declared a habitual offender, and for violations of probation…
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 Probation Violation Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals the judgments and sentences imposed for three new offenses and the sentences imposed for violations of probation in two previous cases. He raises three issues. We find error only in the sentences imposed for the violations of probation.
At sentencing, the trial court declared the defendant a habitual offender for the three new offenses. In sentencing the defendant for the violations of probation, the trial court used a newly prepared sentencing guidelines scoresheet which included the three new habitual offender convictions instead of using the original scoresheet for the prior offenses. Because the defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender on the new offenses, it was error to utilize a single score-sheet that included these convictions. We recognize that in State v. Lamar, 659 So. 2d 262 (Fla.1995), the supreme court recently held that, where a defendant is sentenced at the same sentencing hearing for a new felony and a violation of probation grounded upon the new felony, the trial court should use a single scoresheet and may impose the most severe sentencing scheme permissible as outlined in State v. Tito, 616 So. 2d 39 (Fla.1993). However, because habitual offender convictions may not be included on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, Lamar does not apply when a defendant is sentenced as a habitual offender on the new offenses. On remand, the trial court should use the original score-sheet with a one-cell bump for the violation of probation. See Silvestrini v. State, 633 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The trial court may not reconsider the habitual offender sentences it imposed for the new convictions. However, should the trial court decide to impose consecutive sentences, they must be structured so that the habitual offender sentence is served first. See Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
THREADGILL, C.J., and RYDER and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watson v. State, 718 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…nce. Assuming that the trial court revoked Watson’s community control based on this new offense, then the trial court was required to use a separate scoresheet because it imposed a habitual offender sentence on the new offense. See Simmons v. State, 661 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In Simmons, this court recognized that “where a defendant is sentenced at the same sentencing hearing for a new felony and a violation of probation grounded upon the new felony, the trial court should use a single scoresheet…
-
Pressley v. State, 726 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…tencing documents may be corrected to reflect that Mr. Pressley was not sentenced as a habitual offender on the murder conviction. We also note that the habitualized sentence must be served before the non-habitualized sentence. See Simmons v. State, 661 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with instructions. NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., QUINCE, PEGGY A., Associate Judge, Concurs.…
-
Clozell Richardson v. State, 730 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…eing sentenced, as here, on multiple cases, separate scoresheets must be prepared scoring each offense as the primary offense. The sentencing court must then utilize the scoresheet that recommends the most severe sanction. See also Simmons v. State, 661 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Yourn v. State, 652 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Because the sentencing court had before it only one scoresheet that blended both cases without first determining which case’s primary offense produced the most severe sanction,…
Authorities Cited
- Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Tito, 616 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Lamar, 659 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1995)
- Silvestrini v. State, 633 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)