GREGORY H. PETERSON, 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.
Gregory Peterson appealed his convictions for possession of counterfeit controlled substance and sale of such substance. The Florida appellate court affirmed the convictions but expressed concern about the trial court's sentencing procedures and documentation practices.
The court affirmed Peterson's convictions for possession of counterfeit controlled substance and sale of such substance. The court expressed concern that the trial court's practice of preparing only a sentencing memorandum when imprisonment is not imposed is unusual and may result in mischief, making it difficult for appellate courts to determine sentences and review conditions of probation.
[1] A written sentence form comparable to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.986 is not required when a sentence imposes only probation or a term in county jail.
[2] Relying exclusively on a "Memo of Sentence" or "snapout" for sentences of probation or county jail may create an inadequate record for appellate review.
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“We are concerned that the trial court's procedure of preparing only a sentencing memorandum when imprisonment is not imposed is a very unusual practice that may result in mischief.”
The court's primary concern about the sentencing procedure used by the trial court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeterson was convicted of possession of a counterfeit controlled substance and sale of such a substance. At the sentencing hearing on March 6, 1998, 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 Sentencing Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.
We affirm Gregory Peterson’s convictions for possession of a counterfeit controlled substance and sale of such a substance. We comment only on the sentencing, procedure in this case. We are concerned that the trial court’s procedure of preparing only a sentencing memorandum when imprisonment is not imposed is a very unusual practice that may result in mischief.
At the sentencing hearing on March 6, 1998, the trial court initially sentenced Mr. Peterson to twenty-two months’ imprisonment followed by three years of drug offender probation. Following a recess, this sentence was orally corrected to “one year in the Polk County jail.” Although we are still uncertain, we believe that the period of probation initially imposed was deleted after the recess. If so, this sentence is now fully served.
Our record contains no sentence on a form comparable to any form in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.986. When this court ordered that the record be supplemented with the sentence so we could determine whether probation was imposed, we were informed by the Clerk of the Tenth Judicial Circuit that written sentences are only prepared in that circuit for sentences of state imprisonment. When a sentence imposes only probation or a term in the county jail, apparently this circuit is relying exclusively upon the “Memo of Sentence,” also called a “snapout.” This procedure makes it difficult for the appellate court to determine the sentence and to review the conditions of probation. We attach as an appendix the two sentencing documents created in this case to demonstrate the problem.
We have not been asked to reverse this sentence and we affirm this appeal. We caution the judges in the Tenth Circuit, however, that the procedure they apparently are utilizing on a regular basis may. not always create an adequate record for review.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.