Mitchell v. State, s. 95-3646
| Decision Date | 23 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 95-3646,95-3647,s. 95-3646 |
| Citation | 681 So.2d 891 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2282 Mark MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Fourth District |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The appellant was placed on probation for a 1993 grand theft and was again placed on probation for a 1994 grand theft and burglary. Subsequently, amended affidavits were filed alleging multiple violations of probation. After a consolidated evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked both probation orders.
We affirm the revocation of probation, but remand for the trial court to enter a written order reciting which of the allegations it relied upon for the revocation. See Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985); Glendon v. State, 669 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). While the trial judge orally pronounced the grounds for revoking probation, the written order merely revokes the appellant's probation without reflecting the court's reasoning.
We also remand for resentencing as to the 1994 grand theft and burglary convictions. The written sentencing orders reflect concurrent sentences of five years' incarceration for the 1993 grand theft, nine years for the 1994 grand theft, and nine years for the 1994 burglary. Resentencing is required for the burglary conviction due to a computational error on the sentencing scoresheet. See Dawson v. State, 532 So.2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The appellant's total sentencing score of 131 was erroneously multiplied by 1.15, where this calculation is properly reserved for initial scores of 40 or less. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.990(a).
Resentencing is also appropriate for the 1994 grand theft due to an ambiguous oral pronouncement by the trial court:
On the [1994] grand theft I'm not sure if you can give him nine years on the grand theft.... [T]he max you can do is five years and at that point in time we can see how much time he's got. You go with ... five years less any time served depending on how he scores on the guidelines and run that concurrent with the burglary charge.
A defendant's sentence is properly what the trial court intended it to be. Gonzales v. State, 488 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Here, however, the trial court's intent is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aidone v. State, 98-3753.
...evidence or reasons supporting the judge's findings. See Taylor v. State, 681 So.2d 910, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Mitchell v. State, 681 So.2d 891, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (affirming revocation but remanding for entry of written order "reciting which of the allegations it relied upon for th......
-
Drayton v. State, 97-0168
...Cf. Watts v. State, 688 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Larangera v. State, 686 So.2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Mitchell v. State, 681 So.2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Glendon v. State, 669 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); McCloud v. State, 653 So.2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA Appellant also argues that ......
-
Powell v. State, No. 97-2161
...See Watts v. State, 688 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Taylor v. State, 681 So.2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Mitchell v. State, 681 So.2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). AFFIRMED and STONE, C.J., STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. ...
-
Watts v. State, 96-1768
...probation and reflecting the reasons for the revocation. See Taylor v. State, 681 So.2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Mitchell v. State, 681 So.2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Horne v. State, 675 So.2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Glendon v. State, 669 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Wood v. State, 653 ......