SYLVESTER WATKINS, 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.
Sylvester Watkins appealed the denial of his motion to correct a sentencing error under Florida's Criminal Punishment Code. The trial court failed to apply the mandatory twenty-five percent reduction to calculate the 'lowest permissible sentence,' and the appellate court reversed, finding the trial court improperly denied Watkins' motion and remanded for resentencing.
The trial court improperly denied Watkins' motion to correct a sentencing error. The trial court was required by the Criminal Punishment Code to calculate the lowest permissible sentence by applying a twenty-five percent reduction, resulting in a sentence of 88.2 months, which would have been the most severe sanction available despite exceeding the statutory maximum.
[1] A trial court must calculate the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code when imposing a sentence.
[2] A trial court must deduct twenty-five percent from a defendant's total score under the Criminal Punishment Code to determine the lowest permissible sentence.
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“the trial court was required by the Code to calculate the lowest permissible sentence”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the trial court's obligation to apply the Criminal Punishment Code formula
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatkins was convicted of possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony with a maximum legal sentence of 60 months. His Criminal Punishment Code score t…
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 Motion To Correct Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
This is an appeal of the denial of a motion to correct a sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Sylvester Watkins claimed that the sentence imposed by the trial court was not the “lowest permissible sentence” as required by the Criminal Punishment Code found in section 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes (1999), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704(d)(25).1 We agree that the trial court improperly denied Watkins’ motion and reverse.
Watkins was convicted of possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony with a maximum legal sentence of 60 months’ incarceration.2 Watkins’ total score was 145.6 points. In accordance with section 921.0024(2) and rule 3.704(d)(25), since the score exceeded forty-four points, the trial court deducted twenty-eight points and reduced the score to 117.6. However, the trial court did not decrease the remaining total by twenty-five percent as directed by the Code, which would have resulted in the “lowest permissible sentence” of 88.2 months.
The trial court was required by the Code to calculate the lowest permissible sentence. See In re Adoption of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 8.704,, 3.992 to Implement the Florida Criminal Punishment Code, 721 So. 2d 265, 270 (Fla.1998) (committee note). Had the calculations been completed, Watkins’ resulting sentence of 88.2 months still would have exceeded the maximum legal sentence and this “lowest permissible sentence” would have been the most severe sanction available for imposition by the trial court.3
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Watkins’ motion to correct a sentencing error. Upon remand, the trial court shall recalculate the sentence consistent with this opinion. The trial court shall resentence Watkins to the lowest permissible sentence under the Code, unless it wishes to impose a downward departure sentence with written reasons for such a departure.4
Reversed and remanded.
PATTERSON, C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur. . The statute and the rule provide that if the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code exceeds the statutory maximum sentence as provided in section 775.082, the sentence required by the Code must be imposed.
. §§ 893.13(6)(a), 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999). Watkins was also convicted of the misdemeanor offense of attempted trespass of a dwelling or structure. The sentence for the attempted trespass conviction was not the subject of the motion or this appeal. The offenses were committed on April 1, 1999.
. The supreme court noted in Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 101 n. 9 (Fla.2000), that pursuanL to sections 921.001(5) and 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes, sentences in excess of the statutory maximum may now be imposed; however, "[pjrior to the enactment of these statutes, a court could not impose a guidelines sentence outside the statutory limits.”
We are aware that in Butler v. State, 774 So. 2d 925, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), the Fifth District certified the following question to the supreme court: "MAY A TRIAL COURT SENTENCE A DEFENDANT TO A TERM IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1998, WHERE THE LOWEST PERMISSIBLE SENTENCE UNDER THE CODE EXCEEDS THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM?” As of the date of this opinion, the supreme court had not answered the certified question in the negative; therefore, we have relied upon the pronouncements in Maddox in reaching our decision.
.See § 921.00265, Fla. Stat. (1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. State, 838 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…only authorizes the trial court to sentence the appellant to the lowest permissible sentence provided by the Criminal Punishment Code. Thus, the appellant should have received a sentence of 82.3 months, not eighty-four months. See Watkins v. State, 787 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s order summarily denying the appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence and remand for the trial court to resentence the appellant to the lowest permissible sentence pursuant to…
-
Hicks v. State, 817 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Watkins v. State, 787 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. dismissed, 791 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.2001); Butler v. State, 774 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA), cause dis [*1084] missed, 800 So. 2d 612 (Fla.2001); see also Shervis v. State, 808 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). ALLEN, C.J., MINER and W…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Winyatta Butler v. State, 774 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- In re Adoption OF Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.704 & 3.992 TO Implement THE Fla. Crim. Punishment Code, 721 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1998)