ABDULLAH SHABAZZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1996-06-05
No. 95-2505
Pariente, Judge, Stone, J., Klein, J.
674 So. 2d 920 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Synopsis

Conviction for armed sexual battery affirmed, but sentence vacated because the sentencing guidelines scoresheet improperly included firearm points when a mandatory minimum already applied.


Holding

When a mandatory minimum sentence applies under section 775.087(2), the sentencing guidelines scoresheet cannot include additional points for firearm possession.


Headnotes

[1] When a mandatory minimum sentence applies under section 775.087(2), firearm points cannot be duplicatively included in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet calculation.

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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of armed sexual battery and sentenced to twelve years, with the trial court imposing a three-year mandatory minimum as require…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PARIENTE, Judge.

PARIENTE, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for armed sexual battery, but vacate his sentence because of an error in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Because the trial court imposed a sentence which included a three-year mandatory minimum as required by section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1993), it was error for the guidelines scoresheet to include an additional eighteen points for possession of a firearm. See § 921.0014, Fla. Stat. (1993); Dacosta v. State, 672 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Shepherd v. State, 661 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

This error results in a difference in the permissive sentencing range. Although appellant’s twelve-year sentence falls within the permissive range of a properly calculated scoresheet, we are unable to conclude that appellant’s sentence would have been the same had the trial court utilized a correctly calculated scoresheet. See Diaz v. State, 667 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Jaramillo v. State, 646 So. 2d 840, 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1991); cf. Huggins v. State, 537 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, this cause is remanded for resentencing based upon a properly calculated scoresheet.

STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Johnson v. State, 744 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
    …ct the guidelines scoresheet. See Hardy, 705 So. 2d at 981. Since we are unable to conclude that appellant’s sentence would have been the same had the trial court used a properly prepared scoresheet, we remand for resentencing. See Shabazz v. State, 674 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions and for resen-tencing. FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
  • ROY v. State, 711 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
    …range, which required resentenc-ing with a corrected scoresheet. The court, however, immediately resentenced appellant without holding a sentencing hearing, which was error. See Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Shabazz v. State, 674 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). And see Phillips v. State, 705 So. 2d 1320 (Fla.1997) (resentencing is an entirely new proceeding and trial court is under no obligation to make the same findings). REVERSED and REMANDED for resen-tencing. ERVIN and PADOVANO…
  • Lines VAL v. State, 741 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
    …his case falls within the permitted range of a properly prepared scoresheet, we cannot conclude with certainty that appellant’s sentence would have been the same if the trial court had used a properly prepared score-sheet. See also Shabazz v. State, 674 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we remand for resentenc-ing based on a properly prepared score-sheet. POLEN, J., and GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S., Senior Judge, concur.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw