RAYMOND PITTS, 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.
Raymond Pitts appeals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule 3.800(a). The court affirms his concurrent habitual offender sentences but reverses and remands regarding his cocaine possession sentence because the trial court improperly included offenses committed under a different version of the sentencing guidelines on the scoresheet.
The court affirms Pitts's concurrent habitual offender sentences but reverses and remands for resentencing consideration on the cocaine possession count. The trial court must prepare a corrected 1994 sentencing guidelines scoresheet that excludes offenses properly scored under the 1995 guidelines, then determine whether resentencing is appropriate based on the corrected scoresheet.
[1] A sentence imposed pursuant to the 1995 Florida sentencing guidelines is subject to challenge as unconstitutional.
[2] A defendant may be entitled to relief when sentenced under unconstitutional guidelines, provided the offense occurred within the relevant window for relief.
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“When a defendant is before the court for sentencing for more than one felony and the felonies were committed under more than one version or revision of the guidelines, each felony shall be sentenced under the guidelines in effect at the time the particular felony was committed.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that each felony must be scored under the guidelines in effect at the time of commission, not a later version.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRaymond Pitts was sentenced for multiple felonies including possession of cocaine alleged to have occurred on December 10, 1996. The trial court's sen…
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 1995 Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Pitts, the appellant, appeals an order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, in which he sought resentencing pursuant to Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), appeal decided by 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). We affirm as to his several concurrent habitual offender sentences, see Ford v. State, 763 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), but we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider, after the preparation of a corrected 1994 sentencing guidelines scoresheet, whether resentencing is needed with respect to count II of his lower court case no. 96-23432, charging possession of cocaine, for which he received a concurrent non-habitual offender sentence of sixty months.
The possession of cocaine was alleged to have been committed on December 10, 1996, within the window period for raising a Heggs challenge. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000). Although the State maintains that appellant’s sixty-month sentence is within the range produced by a properly calculated 1994 score-sheet, the proposed scoresheet producing that range improperly includes at least one offense which was committed after the effective date of the 1995 sentencing guidelines as determined by Trapp, and properly would be included on a 1995 sentencing guidelines scoresheet. On remand, the trial court is to consider whether appellant is entitled to resentencing on the possession of cocaine count after reviewing a properly prepared 1994 sentencing guidelines score-sheet which does not include offenses properly scored under a 1995 sentencing guidelines scoresheet. See § 921.001(4)(b)4., Fla. Stat. (1997)(“When a defendant is before the court for sentencing for more than one felony and the felonies were committed under more than one version or revision of the guidelines, each felony shall be sentenced under the guidelines in effect at the time the particular felony was committed.”); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(3)(“If an offender is before the court for sentencing for more than one felony and the felonies were committed under more than one version or revision of the guidelines, separate scoresheets must be prepared and used at sentencing.”); Dillard v. State, 728 So. 2d 725 (Fla.1999); Cooper v. State, 743 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Olsen v. State, 791 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…otion as a matter of law. This was error. As part of the original sentencing scheme, Olsen received guidelines sentences on eight separate counts.2 As to these counts, Olsen is entitled to the relief available pursuant to Heggs. See Pitts v. State, 771 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Additionally, the 1995 scoresheet that was used at the original sentencing included the attempted second-degree murder charge as the primary offense and the aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer charge as an additiona…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Sherod Dillard v. State, 728 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1999)
- Deon v. State, 763 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Brown v. State, 743 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Cooper v. State, 743 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)