DEVAUGH L. THOMAS, 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.
Thomas appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) following his guilty pleas to two counts of driving with a suspended license. The court affirmed the trial court's rejection of his claim that his eighteen-month sentence was excessive but reversed on the issue of weekend jail credit, holding that credit should have been awarded in both cases rather than just one.
The court affirmed that the eighteen-month sentence was not excessive, as it represented the lowest permissible sentence given Thomas's 35.7-point scoresheet score. However, the court reversed the trial court's denial of weekend jail credit in case 99-20953, holding that credit should have been awarded in both cases because both offenses were scored on the same scoresheet and sentenced in the same proceeding.
[1] A nonstate prison sanction is the lowest permissible sentence when the defendant's scoresheet points fall within the range for such a sanction.
[2] Offenses scored on the same scoresheet and factored into the computation of a permissible sentence imposed at the same sentencing proceeding trigger the application of th…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 application of Tripp is triggered not by whether a consecutive period of probation is ordered, but by the fact of offenses being scored on the same scoresheet and, thus, factored into the computation of a permissible sentence imposed at the same sentencing proceeding”
Establishes the court's interpretation of when the Tripp rule requiring jail credit applies, focusing on the scoresheet and sentencing proceeding rather than whether probation is consecutive
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 13, 2000, Thomas pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended license in two separate cases (99-17486 and 99-20953). He was sentenced to eigh…
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 Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Devaugh L. Thomas appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On January 13, 2000, Thomas pleaded guilty to one count of driving with a suspended license in case number 99-17486 and another count of driving with a suspended license in case number 99-20953. He was sentenced to eighteen months’ community control followed by eighteen months of probation in both cases. In case number 99-17486, he was also ordered to serve weekends in jail for a specified period of time as a condition of community control.1 Thomas violated his probation and was sentenced to concurrent terms of eighteen months in prison for the violation, but was awarded credit for the weekend jail time served only in case number 99-17486.
In his motion to correct sentencing error, Thomas raises two issues. We find no merit to Thomas’s claim that his sentence of eighteen months is excessive given the point range established in his guidelines scoresheet. As the trial court correctly noted, Thomas scored 35.7 points. Therefore, any nonstate prison sanction was the lowest permissible sentence that could be imposed, not the maximum as Thomas seems to contend. Because Thomas’s offenses were committed after the effective date of the Criminal Punishment Code, October 1, 1998, Thomas could have been given the statutory maximum for his offenses. See § 921.002(g), Fla. Stat. (1999).
Thomas also claims that the weekend jail credit should have been awarded on both cases. We agree. The trial court determined that the rule in Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993), did not apply because the probation ordered in case number 99-20953 was concurrent with, not consecutive to, the probation in case number 99-17486. We believe the application of Tripp is triggered not by whether a consecutive period of probation is ordered, but by the fact of offenses being scored on the same scoresheet and, thus, factored into the computation of a permissible sentence imposed at the same sentencing proceeding. We also join the Third District and the Fifth District in the recognition that the Tripp rule should come into play only where necessary to keep sentences within the guidelines but that the supreme court has not yet receded from Tripp to impose such a limitation. See Witherspoon v. State, 776 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Priester v. State, 711 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We observe that the legislative broadening of permissible guidelines sentencing ranges has virtually eliminated the circumvention of the guidelines problem with which Tripp was concerned. Nevertheless, because Tripp appears to require that credit be granted on both cases, we reverse and remand for the trial court to award the additional credit.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur. . The trial court's order erroneously recites that the weekend jail condition was imposed in both cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Geanetta Moore v. State, 882 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2004)…thin the guidelines.” Id. THOMAS V. STATE The First District in the instant action not only certified a question for this Court’s consideration and resolution, it also noted apparent conflict with the Second District’s decision in Thomas v. State, 805 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). See Moore, 859 So. 2d at 617. In Thomas, the defendant pled guilty to one count of driving with a suspended license in case number 99-17486 and he also pled guilty to one count of driving with a suspended license in ease number 9…
-
Geanetta Moore v. State, 859 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ture’s intent thereunder, we do not believe that the Tripp line of cases constitutes binding precedent. However, the only other appellate decision on point in Florida which we have found appears to reach the contrary conclusion. See Thomas v. State, 805 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we note apparent conflict with Thomas, and certify to the supreme court the question at the conclusion of this opinion, which we believe to be of great public importance. Appellant contends that, because all of her…
Authorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Priester v. State, 711 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Maynard Witherspoon v. State, 776 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)