Percival v. State, s. 85-2338
| Decision Date | 29 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 85-2338,s. 85-2338 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1145 James L. PERCIVAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. to 85-2345. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Candance M. Sunderland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant, James L. Percival, appeals the judgments and sentences entered in eight cases. We find that the trial court erred by requiring appellant's sentences to be served consecutively to an undetermined sentence to be imposed at an undetermined time in the future by a court in another county. We, accordingly, remand with instructions to strike that requirement from the judgments and sentences, but affirm in all other respects.
Appellant was originally placed on probation for two years in Hillsborough County after pleading nolo contendere to the charge of dealing in stolen property. Less than five months later, the state filed seven informations in Hillsborough County charging appellant with ten counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery. Appellant pled nolo contendere to these charges in exchange for the trial court's agreement that he would not be sentenced to serve more than fifteen years in prison.
Although the guidelines scoresheet is not contained in the record, the record reveals that the prosecutor advised the trial court at sentencing that appellant's scoresheet reflected a presumptive sentence of twelve to seventeen years. Defense counsel neither disagreed with nor objected to the prosecutor's statement.
The trial court denied the state's request to depart from the presumptive sentence and, pursuant to its agreement with appellant, imposed five years imprisonment for dealing in stolen property and fifteen years imprisonment for each of the other eleven charges. All of the sentences were to be served concurrently. Over defense counsel's objection, however, the trial court granted the state's request to require these sentences to be served consecutively to a sentence to be imposed at a later date on charges pending against appellant in Pinellas County. Appellant filed timely notices of appeal which have been consolidated for purposes of appeal.
We reject appellant's contention that we must remand for resentencing because there is no scoresheet in the record. Appellant's sentences were entered pursuant to an agreement with the trial court. See Lawson v. State, 497 So.2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Rowe v. State, 496 So.2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), petition for review granted, No. 69-606 (Fla. March 20, 1987). Additionally, the record reflects that a scoresheet was prepared, that the trial court was informed of appellant's score and presumptive sentence, and that the trial court did not depart from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. King, 1
...of implementation. Courts in other jurisdictions have held that such sentences are too indefinite to be implemented. See Percival v. State, 506 So.2d 66 (Fla.App.1987); State v. Blevins, 223 Neb. 864, 394 N.W.2d 663 (1986); State v. DeChenne, 39 Or.App. 901, 594 P.2d 831 (1979). Courts have......
-
Hummell v. State, 96-2799
...5th DCA 1995); Marino v. State, 635 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Smith v. State, 515 So.2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Percival v. State, 506 So.2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Teffeteller, v. State, 396 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Keel v. State, 321 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Accordingly, ......
-
Smith v. State, 87-0662
...after the imposition of a sentence for any future unrelated crime. Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713 (1899); Percival v. State, 506 So.2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); McCall v. State, 475 So.2d 1364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), appeal dismissed, 486 So.2d 596 (Fla.1986); Richardson v. State, 432 S......
-
Burns v. State, s. 86-615--86-619
...court was aware of the presumptive guidelines range. Therefore, absence of a scoresheet here is harmless error. See Percival v. State, 506 So.2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Davis v. State, 461 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 471 So.2d 43 (Fla.1985). On remand, however, the trial court i......