Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1541,87-1541 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1545,528 So.2d 453 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1545 Anthony B. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County; John Dean Moxley, Jr., Judge.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kenneth Witts, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ellen D. Phillips, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
The defendant's recommended guideline sentence range was 2 1/2-3 1/2 years. The pronounced sentence, imposed without giving any reason for imposition of a departure sentence, was imprisonment
for a term of 5 years. However, after serving a period of 3 1/2 years imprisonment in State Prison the balance of such sentence shall be suspended and the defendant shall be placed on probation for a period of 1 1/2 years....
This is a true split sentence as described in, and authorized by, section 948.01(8), Florida Statutes. Although the sentence of 5 years is split into a 3 1/2 year portion, to be unconditionally served under a commitment issued immediately, and a conditional 1 1/2 year portion, to be suspended and served on a recommitment following a violation of probation, it is, nevertheless, a sentence for 5 years' incarceration which exceeds the top limit of the recommended guideline range and is, therefore, a departure sentence unsupported by justifying reasons.
The rule of law in all criminal cases is that any ambiguity in statutes, rules, verdicts, judgments, sentences, and any other matter is resolved in favor of the accused. The rule of lenity codified in section 775.021(1), Florida Statutes, is but one statutory recognition of one aspect of the broader rule of law. The ambiguity that presently inheres in the application of recommended sentencing guideline ranges to true split sentences and to the hybrid sentence composed of an unsplit term of years imprisonment followed by a term of probation should, in both cases, be resolved in favor of the defendant. However, even if the true split sentence in this case is erroneously viewed as being only for a term of 3 1/2 years followed by "something," 1 that "something" is an excess of the top limit of the recommended guideline range in this case because 3 1/2 years' imprisonment subsumes or exhausts the recommended guideline range of 2 1/2-3 1/2 years; therefore, the sentence constitutes a departure from the maximum recommended guidelines sentence. The Second District Court of Appeal in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearson v. Moore, 1D99-2520.
...the defendant. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(15)(D) and (E); generally Dautel v. State, 658 So.2d 88, 90 (Fla.1995); Williams v. State, 528 So.2d 453, 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) ("The rule of law in all criminal cases is that any ambiguity in statutes, rules, verdicts, judgments, sentences, and......
-
Bickowski v. State, 87-2266
...DCA 1988); Hankey v. State, 529 So.2d 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Lloyd v. State, 528 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and Williams v. State, 528 So.2d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). ...
-
Soard v. State, 87-2292
...under Hankey and VanKooten, the sentence in this case constitutes a departure sentence. See also the dissents in Williams v. State, 528 So.2d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and Jackson v. State, 529 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA In order to accomplish an equal application of the law, this court should ......
-
Lewis v. State, 90-00369
...most favorably to the accused." We construe this statute as applying to the sentencing guidelines rules. See Williams v. State, 528 So.2d 453, 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (adopts the rule of lenity in resolving an ambiguity in the application of the guidelines to a true split sentence); §§ 921.......