Boston v. State
| Decision Date | 10 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-298,85-298 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 173,481 So.2d 550 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 173 Anthony BOSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Ann N. Radabaugh, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Frank J. Migliore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
In each of two separate cases pending before two separate judges of the Circuit Court of Lee County, the defendant was charged with burglary of a dwelling. In one case, pending before Judge Wallace Pack, a guidelines scoresheet was prepared which produced a point total placing the defendant in the guideline range of two and one-half to three and one-half years. Judge Pack imposed a sentence of three years. The defendant has not appealed that sentence.
Three weeks after the imposition of sentence by Judge Pack, the defendant appeared before Judge Thomas S. Reese for sentencing in the other proceeding pending against him for burglary of a dwelling. At that time, defense counsel argued that Judge Reese should use the same guidelines scoresheet used by Judge Pack, in view of the provision of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1), which states that "one guideline scoresheet shall be prepared for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing."
Judge Reese disagreed with defense counsel's argument and used a separate scoresheet, although a scoresheet which was identical to the scoresheet which had been used by Judge Pack. Judge Reese then imposed a sentence of three years to run consecutively to the sentence imposed by Judge Pack. The defendant appeals.
Although not explicitly stated by the defendant, we assume that at the time Judge Pack imposed sentence in the proceeding before him, the other charge against the defendant was pending for sentencing before Judge Reese. The state does not argue to the contrary. Under such circumstances, we agree with the defendant that one scoresheet should have been used. We are aware that the defendant apparently made no motion to consolidate the two cases for sentencing, but he did raise the point before Judge Reese. We agree with the decision of our sister court in Gallagher v. State, 476 So.2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), which addresses the situation presented in the instant case. In that case the court said "the Committee Note which makes the sentencing court responsible for the accurate preparation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. State, 85-906
...effect at the time the sentence was originally imposed in this case. See State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985); Boston v. State, 481 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). 1 On July 1, 1984, the supreme court amended the guidelines. The current committee note to section 3.701(d)(12) provides t......
-
Hagins v. State
...county at the time of that defendant's first sentencing hearing are disposed of using one scoresheet"); accord Boston v. State, 481 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, because the trial court in the instant case used more than one scoresheet in sentencing the appellant for all of the......
-
Parker v. State, 85-2818
...863 (Fla.1986). As a defendant must be sentenced according to the guidelines in effect at the time of resentencing, see Boston v. State, 481 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), at resentencing, appellant's status as a habitual offender may not be used as a reason to depart from the sentence recom......
-
Richards v. State, 85-2744
...for appellee. DANAHY, Chief Judge. This case involves the same set of circumstances that was presented to this court in Boston v. State, 481 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The circumstances here occurred prior to our decision in Boston, however, and the trial judges did not have the benefit ......