DAVID R. NICHOLS, 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 court held that habitual offender sentences for drug possession were improper and that guidelines sentences were based on an erroneous scoresheet.
David Nichols pleaded guilty to drug offenses and was sentenced as a habitual offender on some counts and under the guidelines on others. The State po…
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 Scoresheet Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
David Nichols challenges the sentences imposed after he pleaded guilty to several drug-related crimes. We find no merit in the arguments he raises on appeal, but the State has drawn our attention to several sentencing errors that must be corrected.
Nichols was sentenced as a habitual offender in circuit court case numbers 94-1267 and 94-1268. Each of those cases involved two charges, one for sale or delivery of cocaine and one for possession of cocaine. As the State points out, Nichols was incorrectly sentenced as a habitual offender on the counts charging possession. See § 775.084(1)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (1993); Belton v. State, 673 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We affirm Nichols’s habitual offender sentences for the sale or delivery charges, but reverse the sentences for the possession counts and remand for resentencing under the guidelines.
The court sentenced Nichols under the guidelines in circuit court case number 94-1266. The State notes that the score-sheet erroneously included offenses for which Nichols was sentenced as a habitual offender. See Eblin v. State, 677 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We reverse the guidelines sentences in case number 94-1266, and remand for resentencing under a corrected scoresheet. The corrected scoresheet should also be used for resentencing on the cocaine possession counts in case numbers 94-1267 and 94-1268. Nichols’s presence is not required at resentencing.
Sentences affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
PAKKER, C.J., and RONDOLINO, ANTHONY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 760 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…e under the habitual offender statute, those offenses for which the defendant is being sentenced as habitual offender are not to be included either as the primary offense or as an additional offense on the guideline scoresheet. See Nichols v. State, 711 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Eblin v. State, 677 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The correction of this error in sentencing results in an approximate reduction in the maximum months under the guidelines of t…
Authorities Cited
- Eblin v. State, 677 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Belton v. State, 673 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)