Mack v. State
Decision Date | 18 October 1984 |
Docket Number | 83-1724,Nos. 83-1723,s. 83-1723 |
Parties | Jerry MACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kenneth McLaughlin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a sentence. Appellant contends, and we agree, that he was entitled to be sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines because the sentencing occurred after October 1, 1983 and he elected to be sentenced under the guidelines. The fact that appellant was first put on probation and then returned for his sentence for violating the probation does not alter the fact that the guidelines must be followed. Lest the reader be confused by the dissenting opinion, this case does not involve a departure from the sentencing guidelines. This case only involves a judge's refusal to follow Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701. The point on appeal as worded by appellant is "The trial court erred by failing to apply sentencing guidelines to appellant's sentences upon revocation of probation." The state, in its brief says, "Specifically, Appellant contends that the court below erred in finding the guidelines rule inapplicable to sentences imposed following the revocation of probation imposed prior to the effective date of that rule, and he asks the Court to reverse the instant sentence and direct the trial court to impose sentence in accordance with the guidelines." The parties throughout this appeal address only the question as to whether the guidelines apply to a pre-guidelines probationer. At the sentencing hearing the trial judge was told by the defendant's lawyer that the defendant elected to be sentenced under the guidelines. A more complete reading of the proceedings from the transcript follows:
State has previously furnished me with a score sheet indicating a total score of 34, any non-state prison sanction. I agree with the score of the State.
And would say in the behalf of the Defendant, I believe that there was some--or there were, not believed, other charges filed against the defendant; those were nol-prossed. He's done well, Judge Perry. He recognizes the error of his ways. And I would request that the Court continue his probation.
What was the disposition of the burglary charges which he was arrested on in 1983?
Anything else that you want to tell me?
MISS BROWN: No, sir.
The court then proceeded to sentence defendant to a sentence in disregard of the guidelines.
The dissent may choose to read the transcript differently but neither we, nor the trial judge, nor the lawyers have had any question about the issue to be decided. As the Committee Note (c) instructs "If a defendant is to be sentenced for a probation violation, and the sentencing judge elects to revoke probation, the new sentence must be in accordance with the guidelines." See also O'Brien v. State, 454 So.2d 675 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Dunn v. State, 454 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
We agree with Duggar v. State, 446 So.2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) which is squarely on point.
Sentence vacated; remanded.
Prior to October 1, 1983, appellant was placed on probation on a burglary offense and a grand theft offense and violated his probation. On October 1, 1983, the Florida sentencing guidelines became effective. See § 921.001, Fla.Stat. (1983), and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701. As permitted by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kimble v. State, s. 83-1614
...See Carroll v. State, 454 So.2d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Rutlin v. State, 455 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Mack v. State, 458 So.2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We have recently held that as to sentence imposed before July 1, 1984, 2 in the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion and when......
-
Milton v. State
...v. State, 452 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). This court, however, previously has adopted the Boyett majority view. See Mack v. State, 458 So.2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Rutlin v. State, 455 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); O'Brien v. State, 454 So.2d 675 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Dunn v. State, 45......