Branam v. State, 88-2229
| Decision Date | 10 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2229,88-2229 |
| Citation | 540 So.2d 158,14 Fla. L. Weekly 656 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 656 Roger BRANAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard J. Shifke of Anthony F. Gonzalez, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, Roger Branam, was convicted of sexual battery with threats of force or violence, attempted sexual battery, and false imprisonment. His sentencing guidelines scoresheet reflects a recommended prison sentence of life. The trial court originally sentenced Branam to terms of five years in prison for each of the above offenses to run concurrently, and listed reasons for departing downward from the recommended guidelines range.
This court previously found none of the reasons for departure valid and remanded "for resentencing within the guidelines." See Branam v. State, 526 So.2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). This court also noted that the presumptive guidelines sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for the offenses and that Branam must be resentenced to the maximum term provided by the applicable statutes.
On remand, the trial judge sentenced appellant to terms of thirty years, five years, and five years, to be served consecutively. There is no disagreement about the length of these terms which are the maximums under the respective statutes. The appellant contends, however, that the trial judge abused his discretion in resentencing appellant to consecutive terms of imprisonment. The appellant argues that, in essence, this court's original opinion only remanded for resentencing on the count for which appellant did not originally receive the statutory maximum. We disagree. The guidelines scoresheet applied to all three counts and this court's prior opinion dealt with all of the counts.
We perceive a related and more difficult question. On remand the trial judge believed that he had no discretion but to impose consecutive sentences. The question we face is whether the guidelines range takes precedence over the discretion given to a trial judge by section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987) to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.
We hold that the sentencing guidelines law takes precedence over the concurrent-consecutive statute for various reasons. First, the guidelines law was enacted subsequent to section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987) and thus would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fannin v. State, 2D97-250.
...at the time it was imposed...." See id. at 585; see also Kraft v. State, 583 So.2d 365, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).2 In Branam v. State, 540 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), this court considered the issue of whether the trial court must stack maximum sentences to reach a minimum guidelines sente......
-
State v. Tripp, 90-02699
...single sentencing hearing absent a valid written reason for departure. See Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512 (Fla.1990), approving, 540 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Sec. 921.16, Fla.Stat. (1987); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)12. By contrast, the sentencing method authorized by this case allows trial......
-
Branam v. State
...Atty. Gen., and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent. GRIMES, Justice. We review Branam v. State, 540 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), which certified the following question as one of great public When there are multiple convictions and maximum sentences which in the......
-
State v. Hull
...because of the guideline recommendation, notwithstanding Section 721.16(1), Florida Statutes (1987). Citing Branam v. State, 540 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), we disagree. When the recommended guideline sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, the statute for the particular crime controls. S......