Holmes v. State, 98-1274.

Decision Date04 December 1998
Docket NumberNo. 98-1274.,98-1274.
Citation722 So.2d 240
PartiesLuther HOLMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kelli R. Orndorff, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.

In early 1997 appellant was placed on probation after pleading no contest to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Appellant's guidelines scoresheet included eighteen points for firearm possession, based on approval of such inclusion in Gardner v. State, 661 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In a later case, the fourth district reached a contrary conclusion. Galloway v. State, 680 So.2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). When the second district reached a conclusion as in Gardner, and certified conflict with Galloway, the supreme court accepted conflict jurisdiction, and in White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla.1998), approved Galloway, and held that eighteen points could not be assessed for firearm possession where the only substantive crime related to the possession of a firearm. White, however, did not indicate that the decision would be given retroactive effect.

While White was under review by the supreme court, appellant was charged with violation of probation, and after pleading guilty to such violation, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced pursuant to the scoresheet which had earlier been prepared. Counsel noted the pendency of the White appeal, and objected to the continued inclusion of the eighteen points for firearm possession. The objection was overruled. He now contends that it was error to include the eighteen points and that we should reverse for resentencing. The state argues that White does not have retroactive effect, and because there was no objection to this inclusion of the questioned points at the original sentencing proceeding, the issue has not been preserved for appeal.

In Mathis v. State, 719 So.2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), this court held that White would not be given retroactive effect in post-conviction proceedings. However, this is not a case requesting post-conviction relief. In Bransfield v. State, 657 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), this court held that when sentencing after revocation of probation, the trial court could correct errors in the scoresheet not attributed to the defendant. On the original scoresheet, a third degree felony had been scored as the primary offense, but at resentencing, the court used a second degree felony as the primary offense, thus resulting in a greater term of imprisonment, relying on Roberts v. State, 644 So.2d 81 (Fla.1994), and Scherwitz v. State, 644 So.2d 85 (Fla.1994).

In both Roberts and Scherwit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Taylor v. State, 5D01-900.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 30 Noviembre 2001
    ...throughout the commission of all the offenses. Taylor rebuts the State's first contention on the basis that we held in Holmes v. State, 722 So.2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), that the supreme court holding in White applies to cases in which probation is revoked after the effective date of White......
  • HICKMON v. State, 5D99-1987.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 18 Febrero 2000
    ...in the "pipeline" when White was rendered, so White's application to this case is not truly retrospective. See, e.g., Holmes v. State, 722 So.2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Further, to require Hickmon's defense counsel to have made an objection to the scoresheet based on White, as a prerequisi......
  • Carder v. State, 98-1304.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 16 Abril 1999
    ...held that in light of White the assessment of 25 points pursuant to rule 3.702(12) for a possession charge is improper. Holmes v. State, 722 So.2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Since this case was in the "pipeline" at the time White was being decided, Carder is entitled to the benefit of its hol......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT