KEITH VICKERS, 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.
Keith Vickers appeals his resentencing under Florida's sentencing guidelines, arguing he should have received the benefit of his original plea agreement providing for a mid-range sentence. The appellate court affirmed the resentencing as legal and within the 1994 guidelines, holding that the trial court did not have the opportunity to determine whether a mid-range sentence was appropriate under the corrected guidelines.
The court affirmed the 78.5-month sentence imposed under the 1994 guidelines for two reasons: first, because the sentence is within the 1994 guidelines and is legal; second, because the trial court did not have the opportunity to determine whether Vickers should have received a mid-range sentence under the 1994 guidelines when the State requested a high-range sentence.
[1] A sentence imposed pursuant to the correct sentencing guidelines is legal if it falls within the applicable range.
[2] A trial court is not obligated to impose a mid-range sentence under revised guidelines when the State requests a high-range sentence and the defendant does not challenge…
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“because the sentence is within the 1994 guidelines and is a legal sentence. Secondly, because the trial court did not have the opportunity to determine whether Vickers should have received a mid-range sentence under the 1994 guidelines.”
The court's primary rationale for affirming the sentence as legally sufficient and within proper guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVickers was originally sentenced using an erroneously applied 1995 sentencing scoresheet. The trial court and State agreed his crimes were committed w…
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 Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
Keith Vickers appeals his resentencing in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 proceeding in which the trial court and the State agreed that his original sentence was erroneously imposed using a 1995 seoresheet. The court and the parties correctly concluded that because Vick-ers committed the crimes for which he was sentenced at a time when the 1995 guidelines were not effective, he should have been sentenced pursuant to the 1994 guidelines.1
Vickers remains dissatisfied with the reduced sentence that he received under the 1994 guidelines, complaining that he did not receive the benefit of his original plea agreement wherein the State agreed to a mid-range guidelines sentence.2 Under the 1995 guidelines, the mid-range was 95.4 months and the State agreed to a cap of 95 months. When Vickers was resen-tenced under the 1994 guidelines, the mid-range was 61.8 months, but. he was resen-tenced to 78.5 months. We affirm the sentence imposed pursuant to the 1994 guidelines for two reasons. First, because the sentence is within the 1994 guidelines and is a legal sentence. Secondly, because the trial court did not have the opportunity to determine whether Vickers should have received a mid-range sentence under the 1994 guidelines. At the resentencing hearing, the State requested a high-range sentence of 78.5 months, while Vickers requested a minimum sentence of 47.1 months. The State represented to the trial court, in support of its request for a high-range resentencing, that the original previously-imposed sentence, pursuant to the 1995 guidelines, was a “top of the cap” sentence.3 The State’s representation was not challenged at the hearing.
Lastly, we find no merit in Vickers’ argument that the third-degree felonies appearing originally on the 1995 scoresheet as additional offenses should appear as prior felonies on his 1994 scoresheet.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, C.J., and MONACO, J., concur. . See Ch. 95-184, 19, at 1708-10, Laws of Fla. (amending section 775.087, applicable to offenses committed on or after October 1, 1995). In Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court invalidated chapter 95-184 because it violated the single subject rule. In Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court clarified that crimes committed between October 1, 1995 and May 24, 1997 must be sentenced according to the 1994 sentencing guidelines.
. We note Vickers’ reliance on Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), for the assertion that he should not be sentenced beyond the mid-range score under the 1994 guidelines is misplaced because Heggs does not provide relief based on a party's failure to receive the benefit of their plea bargain.
. Our affirmance is without prejudice to Vick-ers to seek a hearing pursuant to rule 3.850 in which the trial court may consider his argument that imposition of a mid-range sentence under the 1994 guidelines is required rather than a high-range sentence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)