Allen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Allen v. State

543 So. 2d 347, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1169, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2575, 1989 WL 48084

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1333

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 543 So. 2d 347 (Allen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. State, 543 So. 2d 347, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1169, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2575, 1989 WL 48084 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARP, Chief Judge.

Allen appeals from the sentences he received in two criminal cases which were pending for sentencing in the same county at the same time. He argues he received a departure sentence because different trial judges imposed separate sentences and employed two different scoresheets. The state agrees error occurred.

In case number 84-1230, on June 1,1988, Allen’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to two years community control for burglary of a structure.¹ At that time, Allen had pled guilty to dealing in stolen property² in case number 88-368.³ On June 9, 1988, he was sentenced in case number 88-368 to thirty months in prison. Both sentences were imposed by the Circuit Court of Putnam County, and each judge employed a separate scoresheet. The two sentences exceeded the guidelines presumptive sentence, had the two charges been combined on the same scoresheet for sentencing.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701.d.l. provides that “[o]ne guideline scoresheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.” It is error to not combine all cases pending and ripe for sentencing in the same county on one scoresheet. Gallagher v. State, 476 So.2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Accordingly, we quash the sentences appealed and remand for resentencing, utilizing one scoresheet. We affirm the convictions.

AFFIRM convictions; QUASH sentences and REMAND for resentencing.

DANIEL and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHARP, Chief Judge.

Allen appeals from the sentences he received in two criminal cases which were pending for sentencing in the same county at the same time. He argues he received a departure sentence because different trial judges imposed separate sentences and employed two different scoresheets. The state agrees error occurred.

In case number 84-1230, on June 1,1988, Allen’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to two years community control for burglary of a structure.¹ At that time, Allen had pled guilty to dealing in stolen property² in case number 88-368.³ On June 9, 1988, he was sentenced in case number 88-368 to thirty months in prison. Both sentences were imposed by the Circuit Court of Putnam County, and each judge employed a separate scoresheet. The two sentences exceeded the guidelines presumptive sentence, had the two charges been combined on the same scoresheet for sentencing.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701.d.l. provides that “[o]ne guideline scoresheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.” It is error to not combine all cases pending and ripe for sentencing in the same county on one scoresheet. Gallagher v. State, 476 So.2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Accordingly, we quash the sentences appealed and remand for resentencing, utilizing one scoresheet. We affirm the convictions.

AFFIRM convictions; QUASH sentences and REMAND for resentencing.

DANIEL and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 So. 2d 347, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1169, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2575, 1989 WL 48084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack