ANTHONY WATSON, 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.
Anthony Watson appeals sentences imposed at resentencing after successfully challenging an illegal sentence for improper habitual offender designation. The court reverses and remands because the trial court imposed consecutive sentences exceeding the guidelines maximum without providing written reasons for departure.
The court holds that the sentences violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(12) because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for a departure from guidelines. The court also rejects Watson's argument that guidelines sentences cannot be imposed consecutive to habitual offender sentences, holding that proper guidelines sentences may be ordered consecutive to proper habitual offender sentences.
[1] A defendant convicted of a life felony is not subject to sentencing as a habitual offender.
[2] A total sentence cannot exceed the total guidelines sentence unless a written reason for departure is provided.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 total sentence cannot exceed the total guidelines sentence unless a written reason is given”
Establishes the core sentencing guideline violation—failure to provide written justification for consecutive sentences exceeding guidelines
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson entered a guilty plea agreement in June 1992 concerning two multi-count cases. He was originally sentenced as a habitual offender for four life…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.701(D)(12) cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Anthony Watson appeals several sentences imposed upon resentencing after he successfully moved the trial court to correct an illegal sentence. The State concedes error. We reverse and remand for resentencing. In June 1992, Watson entered into a plea agreement concerning two multi-count cases. After he was sentenced pursuant to the agreement, he moved to correct his sentence on the ground that it was illegal because he had been improperly sentenced as a habitual offender for four life felonies, to wit: an armed kidnapping in case number 92-4772 and an armed kidnapping and two counts of sexual battery with a deadly weapon in case number 92-4937. See Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1992) (holding that defendant convicted of life felony is not subject to sentencing as a habitual offender). Accord Collins v. State, 800 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court granted Watson’s motion and ordered that he be resentenced on the four offenses. At resentencing, Watson’s scoresheet was recalculated to show a permitted sentence range of twelve to twenty-seven years in both cases. The trial court sentenced Watson to consecutive terms of twenty-seven years for each offense.
These sentences violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(12), which states that although a sentence must be imposed for each offense before the court for sentencing, “the total sentence cannot exceed the total guidelines sentence unless a written reason is given.” The trial court did not provide a written reason for departure. Accordingly, Watson must be resen-tenced pursuant to the guidelines for the four offenses at issue in this case to a term not exceeding twenty-seven years.
We reject Watson’s argument that the trial court may not impose the guidelines sentence for the four offenses consecutively to the concurrent habitual offender sentences for the armed robbery counts of the two cases. See Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that “a proper guidelines sentence can be ordered consecutive to a proper habitual offender sentence even if that means that the total time served exceeds the guidelines maximum.”).
Accordingly, we remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
COVINGTON and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1992)
- Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Collins v. State, 800 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)