SCOTT I. SNOUFFER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1996-12-04
No. 95-04680
WHATLEY, J., and PADGETT, J. ROGERS, Associate Judge, concur.
684 So. 2d 247 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1996)

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

Scott Snouffer appeals his convictions for felonious possession of a firearm and unauthorized possession of a driver's license. The court affirms his convictions but reverses and remands for resentencing because the trial court improperly used separate scoresheets for two offenses that were both pending for sentencing and should have been scored on a single scoresheet.


Holding

The court affirmed Snouffer's convictions but reversed his sentences. The trial court erred by using separate scoresheets for the two offenses, as both were pending for sentencing and should have been scored on a single scoresheet pursuant to Rule 3.701(d)(1). The court remanded for resentencing under one scoresheet and for recalculation of prior record scoring in accordance with Rule 3.701(d)(5)(F).


Headnotes

[1] A single guideline scoresheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.

[2] When offenses are pending for sentencing at the time of the defendant's first sentencing hearing, the trial court bears the burden to ensure all such offenses are dispose…

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

Key Quotes

“One guideline scoresheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.”

The applicable rule requiring a single scoresheet for all pending offenses, which the trial court violated.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

On October 11, 1995, a jury convicted Snouffer of unauthorized possession of a driver's license. On October 12, 1995, a jury convicted him of feloniou…

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
PATTERSON, Acting Chief Judge.

PATTERSON, Acting Chief Judge.

Scott Snouffer appeals from his judgments and sentences for felonious possession of a firearm and unauthorized possession of a driver’s license. We have considered all the points Snouffer has raised and find merit only in his argument regarding sentencing. Therefore, we affirm his convictions and reverse and remand for resentencing.

On October 11, 1995, a jury returned a guilty verdict on the charge of unauthorized possession of a driver’s license. On October 12, 1995, a jury returned a guilty verdict on the charge of felonious possession of a firearm. The trial court sentenced Snouffer on October 12, 1995, and used a separate score-sheet for each offense.

Snouffer contends that the trial court should have used one scoresheet in sentencing him, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1), which provides: “One guideline scoresheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.” Both of Snouffer’s offenses met the definition of “pending” when the trial court sentenced him because Snouffer had received guilty verdicts on both charges. See Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387, 1391 (Fla.1991). The Clark court held that the burden falls on the defendant to request simultaneous sentencing when one or more of the offenses do not meet the “pending for sentencing” definition. Otherwise, it is the trial court’s burden “to assure that all of a defendant’s cases pending for sentencing in a particular county at the time of the defendant’s first sentencing hearing are disposed of using one scoresheet.” Alvarez v. State, 600 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Thus, we reverse Snouffer’s sentences and remand for resentencing under one scoresheet.

Snouffer also contends that pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5)(F), the trial court erred in scoring his prior record.1 Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5)(F) provides:

An offender’s prior record shall not be scored if the offender has maintained a conviction-free record for a period of 10 consecutive years from the most recent date of release from confinement, supervision, or sanction, whichever is later, to the date of the primary offense.

Based on the record before us, we are unable to determine whether Snouffer maintained the requisite conviction-free period. On remand, Snouffer’s prior record must be scored in accordance with rule 3.701(d)(5)(F).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

WHATLEY, J., and PADGETT, J. ROGERS, Associate Judge, concur. . Rule 3.701(d)(5)(F) applies to Snouffer's 1993 offenses. Under the 1994 revised sentencing guidelines, the scoring of prior record is contained in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(8)(A).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw