State v. Marshall
Decision Date | 08 April 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 5D03-1258.,5D03-1258. |
Citation | 869 So.2d 754 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Earl MARSHALL, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
The State of Florida appeals the sentence meted out to the appellee, Earl Marshall, after Mr. Marshall violated his probation. Because the trial court used an erroneous scoresheet and awarded a downward departure without valid written or transcribed reasons for doing so, we remand for resentencing.
In accordance with a plea agreement, Mr. Marshall pled nolo contendere to two of three drug offenses, in exchange for an agreed concurrent sentence of 51 weeks in county jail, with credit for time served, plus one year of probation, which included a special condition requiring completion of a residential drug treatment program. The sentence was a small downward departure, founded on the uncoerced negotiated plea agreement. See State v. Williams, 667 So.2d 191 (Fla.1996)
. After serving the incarcerative portion of the sentence, Mr. Marshall absconded from supervision. He was eventually taken into custody, and admitted the violation of probation. In making the admission, however, he was apparently unaware that the State would seek to correct the scoresheet upon which he was originally sentenced.
At sentencing for the violation of probation, the State pointed out to the trial court that a number of prior convictions had not been scored on Mr. Marshall's Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet that had been submitted at the time of his original sentencing. The revised scoresheet, with the additional points from the violation of probation, reflected a lowest permissible sentence of 17.925 months in state prison. The defense argued for 13.05 months, based on the original incorrect scoresheet. The trial judge, who expressed concern because Mr. Marshall was induced to plead initially by use of an incorrect scoresheet, sentenced Mr. Marshall to serve 51 weeks and 48 days in state prison (he had been in custody for 48 days on the violation of probation), with credit for time served. The State appeals. We reverse.
The defendant in Roberts was the beneficiary of a mistake in his original guidelines scoresheet, just as Mr. Marshall is here. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that since the defendant had committed a new crime and, thus, violated his probation, they saw no reason to perpetuate the error. "Justice is not served by awarding a defendant something to which he is not entitled." Citing with approval the Third District's opinion in Roberts v. State, 611 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the Florida Supreme Court said further:
The defendant cites to Graham v. State, 559 So.2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) for the proposition that a trial court is without power to consider a new scoresheet, over objection, containing prior convictions completely omitted from the original. The contention then is that the defendant be sentenced under a scoresheet that is simply not based upon the truth. Consequently, we do not agree with Graham because to follow it literally, the defendant receives the benefit of being sentenced under a scoresheet which mistakenly omits prior convictions. Neither the rules nor the substantive law requires a defendant receiving the largesse of a judicial error. Since only one guideline scoresheet may be used for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court at sentencing, Fla. R.Crim. Proc. 3.701(d)(1); accord Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla.1989),
following the defendant's argument permits him to escape the punishment meted out by the law.
Furthermore, since the defendant's violation of probation...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Proctor v. State, 5D03-907.
-
Carrigan v. State
...concerns do not come into play." Id. at 82-83, citing Roberts v. State, 611 So.2d 58, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). See also State v. Marshall, 869 So.2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Roberts applies where points were mistakenly omitted from the original scoresheet, and has not been used to permit an a......
-
State v. Dunn, 1D07-0299.
...it must announce on the record a valid reason for so doing. State v. Carlson, 911 So.2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); State v. Marshall, 869 So.2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). BARFIELD, WOLF, and HAWKES, JJ., ...
-
State v. Jackson
...downwardly from the indicated guidelines sentence, it must announce or write its valid reasons for doing so.” State v. Marshall, 869 So.2d 754, 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also, § 921.0026(1), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“A downward departure from the lowest permissible sentence, as calculated acco......