ELONZELL W. SUGGS, 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.
The appellate court vacated the appellant's sentence because the trial court provided invalid reasons for an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The case was remanded for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet.
Yes, the trial court erred. The reasons for the upward departure were unsupported, and the scoresheet contained errors. Therefore, the sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing.
[1] A sentence imposed based on reasons for departure not supported by the record must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing within the presumptive guidelines ran…
[2] A trial court must ensure an accurate sentencing scoresheet is used before making a sentencing decision.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“none of the reasons for departure provided by the trial court are supported by the record.”
Establishes the primary reason for vacating the sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant received an upward departure sentence. The state conceded that the reasons provided by the trial court for this departure were not suppo…
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 Victim Injury Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the instant appeal, appellant raises the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in imposing an upward departure sentence. Appellant argues and the state properly concedes that none of the reasons for departure provided by the trial court are supported by the record. Appellant’s sentence is, therefore, vacated, and the case .is remanded for resentencing within the presumptive guidelines range. See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748, 749 (Fla.l987)(“Generally, when all of the reasons stated by the trial court in support of departure are found invalid, resentencing following remand must be within the presumptive guidelines sentence.”).
On remand, however, the guidelines sentencing scoresheet requires correction. See Williams v. State, — So. 2d —, 21 Fla.
L. Weekly D2050 [1996 WL 51156] (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 11, 1996)(“The trial court should have an accurate scoresheet before making a sentencing decision.”). The victim injury points, the points for legal status violation, and use of the law enforcement protection multiplier must be deleted from the scoresheet.
First, as appellant argues, neither the victim injury points nor the legal status violation points originally scored are supported by the record.
Second, the law enforcement protection multiplier contained in section 921.0014(1), Florida Statutes (1993), is not applicable pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)2, as the state argues. There is no firearm violation charged in the instant case and no finding of such possession. See State v. Smith, 601 So. 2d 263, 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(holding where defendant charged with sale and possession of cocaine and each count also charged firearm possession under section' 775.087(2)(a) and (b) the phrase “had in his possession” means “had either on his person or readily accessible”). Points may be assessed on remand, however, for release program violation, if such is supported by the record.
The cause is remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Smith, 601 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)