DENCIL LEE CHAPMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a sentence. The state has conceded that it was improper for the grand theft to be an “additional offense” under the sentencing 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 behavior was a continuing pattern but not escalating.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.
GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. State, 732 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…where a trial court in a simultaneous sentencing imposes habitual offender dispositions on some counts but guidelines dispositions on other counts. See id. at 94-95; see also Alexander v. State, 680 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Chapman v. State, 672 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Eaddy v. State, 626 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).* The logic of Ricardo is apparently that it would unfairly increase the permitted sentence for the guidelines sentences if simultaneously-sentenced habitualized offenses are co…
Authorities Cited
- Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Watson v. State, 658 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)