Roberts v. State, No. 87660

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtOVERTON; KOGAN
Citation685 So.2d 1277
Parties22 Fla. L. Weekly S5 Christopher ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 87660
Decision Date19 December 1996

Page 1277

685 So.2d 1277
22 Fla. L. Weekly S5
Christopher ROBERTS, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 87660.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Dec. 19, 1996.

Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; and James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief and Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review Roberts v. State, 677 So.2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:

IF THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSES A SPLIT SENTENCE, MAY THE INCARCERATIVE PORTION OF THE SENTENCE DEVIATE MORE THAN 25 PERCENT FROM THE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES PRISON SENTENCE IF THE TRIAL COURT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICABLE STATUTES AND RULES IN IMPOSING THE DEPARTURE SENTENCE?

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we answer

Page 1278

the question in the affirmative and approve the district court's decision.

The facts of this case are as follows. Christopher Roberts entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of burglary of a dwelling with an assault committed in the course of the offense. No sentence was agreed upon. The trial judge imposed a departure sentence of seventy-two months in state prison to be followed by twenty-four months' probation. This sentence constituted a probationary split departure sentence under which the incarcerative portion of the sentence deviated more than twenty-five percent from the 1994 recommended sentencing guidelines range of 34.5 to 57.5 months. The trial judge entered written reasons for the departure.

Roberts appealed the sentence, contending that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(19) prohibits incarceration in excess of the 1994 guidelines if a split sentence is imposed. The rule provides in pertinent part as follows:

The sentencing court shall impose or suspend sentence for each separate count, as convicted. The total sentence shall be within the guidelines sentence unless a departure is ordered.

If a split sentence is imposed, the incarcerative portion of the sentence must not deviate more than 25 percent from the recommended guidelines prison sentence. The total sanction (incarceration and community control or probation) shall not exceed the term provided by general law or the guidelines recommended sentence where the provisions of subsection 921.001(5) apply.

Rule 3.702(d)(19) (emphasis added). On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal evaluated each sentence contained in this subsection of rule 3.702, finding that it essentially constituted a restatement of the substance of committee note (d)(12) of the pre-1994 sentencing guidelines contained in rule 3.701, which provided:

The sentencing court shall impose or suspend sentence for each separate count, as convicted. The total sentence shall not exceed the guideline sentence, unless the provisions of subdivision (d)(11) are complied with.

If a split sentence is imposed (i.e. a combination of state prison and probation supervision), the incarcerative portion imposed shall not be less than the minimum of the guidelines range nor exceed the maximum of the range. The total sanction (incarceration and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Ramroop v. State, No. 5D14–1359.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 4, 2015
    ...are not to be read in isolation, but rather should be construed within the context of the entire section.” Id. (citing Roberts v. State, 685 So.2d 1277, 1279 (Fla.1996) ). Applying this principle, the court stated that “[i]t would be illogical and unreasonable to require that knowledge of t......
  • Cason ex rel. Saferight v. Hammock, No. 5D04-2111.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 24, 2005
    ...should be construed within the context of the entire section." Thompson v. State, 695 So.2d 691, 692 (Fla.1997) (citing Roberts v. State, 685 So.2d 1277, 1279 (Fla.1996)); see also Acosta v. Richter, 671 So.2d 149, 154 (Fla.1996); Jackson v. State, 634 So.2d 1103, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); ......
  • Ramroop v. State, Case No. 5D14-1359
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 4, 2015
    ...are not to be read in isolation, but rather should be construed within the context of the entire section." Id. (citing Roberts v. State, 685 So. 2d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 1996)). Applying this principle, the court stated that "[i]t would be illogical and unreasonable to require that knowledge of ......
  • Thompson v. State, No. 87505
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 12, 1997
    ...a statute are not to be read in isolation, but rather should be construed within the context of the entire section. Roberts v. State, 685 So.2d 1277, 1279 (Fla.1996). In this instance, the legislature chose to include subsection (3) within a statute which by title addresses assault and batt......
4 cases
  • Ramroop v. State, No. 5D14–1359.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 4, 2015
    ...are not to be read in isolation, but rather should be construed within the context of the entire section.” Id. (citing Roberts v. State, 685 So.2d 1277, 1279 (Fla.1996) ). Applying this principle, the court stated that “[i]t would be illogical and unreasonable to require that knowledge of t......
  • Cason ex rel. Saferight v. Hammock, No. 5D04-2111.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 24, 2005
    ...should be construed within the context of the entire section." Thompson v. State, 695 So.2d 691, 692 (Fla.1997) (citing Roberts v. State, 685 So.2d 1277, 1279 (Fla.1996)); see also Acosta v. Richter, 671 So.2d 149, 154 (Fla.1996); Jackson v. State, 634 So.2d 1103, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); ......
  • Ramroop v. State, Case No. 5D14-1359
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 4, 2015
    ...are not to be read in isolation, but rather should be construed within the context of the entire section." Id. (citing Roberts v. State, 685 So. 2d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 1996)). Applying this principle, the court stated that "[i]t would be illogical and unreasonable to require that knowledge of ......
  • Thompson v. State, No. 87505
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 12, 1997
    ...a statute are not to be read in isolation, but rather should be construed within the context of the entire section. Roberts v. State, 685 So.2d 1277, 1279 (Fla.1996). In this instance, the legislature chose to include subsection (3) within a statute which by title addresses assault and batt......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT