Barnett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barnett v. State

642 So. 2d 575, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7992, 1994 WL 419084

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 12, 1994

DocketNo. 92-03970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 642 So. 2d 575 (Barnett 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

Barnett v. State, 642 So. 2d 575, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7992, 1994 WL 419084 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Chief Judge.

Simon Barnett, Jr., has appealed from the sentences imposed upon him after he violated probation. Because the offenses pending for sentencing were not properly scored, we reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to the appropriate guidelines procedure.

The state attorney at sentencing engaged in a novel but confusing attempt to manipulate the scoresheet to increase the period of Barnett’s punishment by dismissing some of the affidavits of violation of probation. The sentencing guidelines, however, require that the primary offense at conviction be that which, when scored on the guidelines scoresheet, recommends the most severe [576]*576sanction. Rule 3.701(d)(3), Fla.R.Crim.P. The state attorney is to prepare a separate guidelines scoresheet for each offense, scoring prior record appropriately, then to use the scoresheet which recommends the most severe sentencing range. Rule 3.701(d)(3)(A) & (B), Fla.R.Crim.P. Any other pending offenses are to be scored as additional offenses at conviction. Rule 3.701(d)(4), Fla. R.Crim.P. Our court recently confirmed the necessity of following this procedure in Grady v. State, 618 So.2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). On remand, the court is to sentence Barnett pursuant to the scoresheet that recommends the harshest sentence and which takes into account all violations of probation that are pending at the time of sentencing.

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

FRANK, Chief Judge.

Simon Barnett, Jr., has appealed from the sentences imposed upon him after he violated probation. Because the offenses pending for sentencing were not properly scored, we reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to the appropriate guidelines procedure.

The state attorney at sentencing engaged in a novel but confusing attempt to manipulate the scoresheet to increase the period of Barnett’s punishment by dismissing some of the affidavits of violation of probation. The sentencing guidelines, however, require that the primary offense at conviction be that which, when scored on the guidelines scoresheet, recommends the most severe [576]*576sanction. Rule 3.701(d)(3), Fla.R.Crim.P. The state attorney is to prepare a separate guidelines scoresheet for each offense, scoring prior record appropriately, then to use the scoresheet which recommends the most severe sentencing range. Rule 3.701(d)(3)(A) & (B), Fla.R.Crim.P. Any other pending offenses are to be scored as additional offenses at conviction. Rule 3.701(d)(4), Fla. R.Crim.P. Our court recently confirmed the necessity of following this procedure in Grady v. State, 618 So.2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). On remand, the court is to sentence Barnett pursuant to the scoresheet that recommends the harshest sentence and which takes into account all violations of probation that are pending at the time of sentencing.

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 So. 2d 575, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7992, 1994 WL 419084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack