Kerr v. State

Decision Date20 December 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-2720,84-2720
CitationKerr v. State, 481 So.2d 1233, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 38 (Fla. App. 1985)
Parties11 Fla. L. Weekly 38 Orville Patrick KERR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

J. Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and L.S. Alperstein, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

On August 30, 1984, a jury found the defendant Orville Patrick Kerr guilty of second degree murder and possession of a short-barreled shotgun, violations of sections 782.04(2) and 790.221, Florida Statutes (1983). The offenses occurred on March 31, 1984. After hearing argument from counsel, the trial judge decided to depart from the sentencing guidelines and filed a written order setting forth his reasons for exceeding the guidelines. The defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of ninety-nine years on the second degree murder count and five years on the possession charge. The court retained jurisdiction over one-third of defendant's sentence. The defendant appeals his sentences on two grounds.

First, defendant argues that the court incorrectly used a guidelines scoresheet based on the revised version of the category I scoresheet, which became effective on July 1, 1984. The Florida Bar: Amendment of Rules of Criminal Procedure (3.701, 3.988--Sentencing Guidelines), 451 So.2d 824 (Fla.1984). It reflected a range of seventeen to twenty-two years imprisonment. As defendant notes, Florida courts have previously held that the proper scoresheet is the version in effect at the time the crimes were committed. Jones v. State, No. BD-92 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 10, 1985) [10 F.L.W. 2330]; Lewis v. State, 475 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) [10 F.L.W. 2293]; Beggs v. State, 473 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In this case, that scoresheet, if used, would have recommended twelve to seventeen years incarceration.

Since the filing of this appeal, however, our supreme court issued its opinion in State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985), in which the court stated that a modification in the sentencing guidelines procedure is merely a procedural change which does not require application of the ex post facto doctrine. Therefore, on the authority of Jackson, we hold that it was not error for the trial court to use the revised version of the category I scoresheet in effect at the time of sentencing. See also Davis v. State, 480 So.2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Second, defendant contends that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over his sentence. A trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a defendant...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Van Horn v. State, 84-2274
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 1986
    ...retroactive application of guideline amendments in all cases. See Jones v. State, 482 So.2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Kerr v. State, 481 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Inscore v. State, 480 So.2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Carter v. State, 483 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).2 I note that the lo......
  • Staten v. State, 85-2194
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 1986
    ...of appellant's sentence. State v. Mobley, 481 So.2d 481 (Fla.1986); McPhaul v. State, 496 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Kerr v. State, 481 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We affirm appellant's convictions. We vacate the sentences and remand for SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur. ...
  • Copeland v. State, s. 84-2540
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1987
    ...retention of jurisdiction over one-third of appellant's sentences. We have repeatedly held that this is improper. Kerr v. State, 481 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). See, e.g., Ragan v. State, 468 So.2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA Accordingly, we reverse appellant's sentences and remand for resentencing......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 15, 1986
    ...over ten years of the burglary sentence. The court had no authority to retain jurisdiction over a guidelines sentence. Kerr v. State, 481 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's convictions but vacate his sentences. We remand for resentencing consistent with th......