Madrey v. State, 91-497
| Decision Date | 28 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-497,91-497 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D581 Marvin MADREY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Noel A. Pelella, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James N. Charles, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Appellant appeals his judgments of guilt and sentence which were imposed by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of two counts of committing an indecent assault upon a child under the age of 16. 1 We find no merit in the challenges raised to appellant's conviction; however, the trial court did err in imposing sentence and, therefore, we must vacate appellant's sentence and remand this cause for resentencing.
Rule 3.701 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure states that victim injury shall be scored for each victim physically injured during a criminal episode or transaction. We have previously held that the sentencing commission, the supreme court, and the legislature intended points for victim injury to be scored only once for each victim as to each criminal episode or transaction and not once for each count or offense into which the events comprising a single criminal episode or transaction may have been divided and charged. Fretwell v. State, 586 So.2d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Here, the trial court multiplied the victim injury points by two, apparently because appellant was found guilty of committing two indecent assaults. This was error because there was only one victim and there was no proof that the indecent assaults took place during more than one criminal transaction or episode. We note that when the trial court sentenced appellant it did not have the benefit of our decision in Fretwell.
This error affected appellant's sentence because, instead of assessing 40 points for victim injury, the trial court should have assessed only 20 points. The deletion of the additional 20 points drops appellant's guidelines sentence from cell five to cell four. In cell five appellant's recommended range is 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 years imprisonment and the permitted range is 3 1/2 to 7 1/2 years imprisonment. In cell four appellant's recommended sentencing range is 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 years imprisonment and the permitted range is 2 1/2 to 5 1/2 years imprisonment. The trial court sentenced appellant within the permitted range of cell five to a term of 7 years imprisonment. This term of 7 years imprisonment constitutes a departure from cell four and, because the trial court has not provided written reasons justifying departure, we must reverse.
However, because the trial court did not realize that it was imposing a departure sentence, on remand the trial court is permitted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kio v. State, 91-2744
...was error," and reversed and remanded for resentencing based upon a corrected scoresheet. 565 So.2d at 840. Accord Madrey v. State, 594 So.2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In this case, under the "Victim injury" category, appellant was assessed a total of 120 points (forty points each for the th......
-
Jones v. State, 92-04013
...Jones's multiple convictions stemmed from a "single episode," the quadrupling of "victim injury" points was improper. Madrey v. State, 594 So.2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA1992). Jones also questions the propriety of scoring victim injury under any circumstances. This portion of the motion is based o......
-
Najar v. State, 91-03798
...regardless of the number of sexual batteries a defendant commits upon a victim in a single criminal occurrence. 1 Madrey v. State, 594 So.2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA1992). The error affected Najar's sentence. The deletion of the erroneous points reduces his scoresheet total by 85 points, placing h......
-
Morales v. State, 90-2885
...ch. 92-135, Sec. 4, do not apply to this case. The rule must be applied as it existed at the time of the offense. See Madrey v. State, 594 So.2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA Reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART, J., concur. COPE, Judge, Specially Co......