ERIC K. SMITH, 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.
Florida appellate court vacated and remanded sentences in multiple cases due to sentencing guideline errors and failure to reflect concurrent sentencing orders in written dispositions.
Sentences must be vacated and remanded where the trial court imposed a sentence exceeding guideline maximums and failed to reflect concurrent sentencing orders in written dispositions.
[1] Trial court sentences exceeding sentencing guideline maximums must be vacated and remanded for resentencing within proper guidelines.
[2] Written sentencing orders must reflect concurrent sentencing directives expressly specified by the trial court at the time of sentencing.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith received multiple sentences across several cases. In case 91-1592, he was sentenced to fifteen years for burglary of a dwelling despite guidelin…
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 Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have identified four errors among appellant’s many judgments and sentences: in case number 91-1592, a violation of community control on the charge of Burglary of a Dwelling, Smith was improperly sentenced to fifteen years in the DOC. The guidelines indicate that his score of 107, plus a two-cell bump up for two separate violations of probation, limited the trial court to a maximum sentence of twelve years. The original score-sheet appears to be incorrect. Additionally, the written disposition in each case should reflect the trial court’s order that the State Attorney’s office in Osceola County should make a non-binding recommendation that any pending cases in Orange County would run concurrent with these sentences. This would not normally be required; however, the court expressly specified at sentencing that it would be done and it was not. In case number 92-1171, the written order should reflect that Smith received a fifteen year term in count I concurrent with a five year term in count II, rather than a twenty year term in count I. Finally, in cases number 94-212, 94-502, 94-629, and 94 — 792, the written orders should reflect that these cases not only run concurrently with each other but also with the sentences in cases 91-1592, 91-1626 and 92-1171.
Judgments AFFIRMED; sentences VACATED and REMANDED.
HARRIS, GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.