GEORGE AVANT, 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 the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence, as the error was not harmless and the sentencing amendments could not be applied retroactively.
Avant was sentenced to life in prison for a probation violation. He alleged his sentence was illegal because the trial court used the wrong sentencing…
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 Retroactive Application Of Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
[*98] PER CURIAM.
George Avant appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. We reverse.
Avant was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison in 1986 for offenses that occurred in 1985. After he was released from prison on probation, he violated probation. He was then sentenced to life in prison for the violation of probation.
Avant alleges that his sentence is illegal because the trial court used the 1988 sentencing guidelines rather than the 1985 sentencing guidelines. He further alleges that the trial court sentenced him within the permitted range rather than within the recommended range for offenses that occurred before the applicable rules, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 and 3.988, were amended to permit sentencing within the permitted range.
The trial court denied the motion, stating that although the 1985 scoresheet should have been used to determine Avant’s sentence, the error was harmless. According to the trial court, Avant’s life sentence would be within the permitted range if the correct scoresheet had been used.
This conclusion is erroneous on two grounds. First, the attachments to the order denying relief do not conclusively demonstrate that Avant would have received the same sentence with a correct scoresheet. See Carter v. State, 705 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Second, the rule amendments that expanded the trial court’s discretion to allow sentencing within permitted ranges went into effect in 1988. See Jones v. State, 615 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). These amendments cannot be applied retroactively. Id. at 706. Consequently, Avant is entitled to be resentenced with a correct scoresheet, within the recommended sentencing range rather than within the permissible sentencing range.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 705 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- City OF Coral Gables v. NEW Times Newspapers OF Fla., Inc., 615 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Jones v. State, 615 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)