Bennett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bennett v. State

652 So. 2d 1277, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3682, 1995 WL 214655

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 1995

DocketNo. 95-30

StatusPublished

This text of 652 So. 2d 1277 (Bennett 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

Bennett v. State, 652 So. 2d 1277, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3682, 1995 WL 214655 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

Gregory Bennett appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). After entering nolo contende-re pleas, Bennett was sentenced on June 4, 1992 to 20 years incarceration for attempted sexual battery, and received a total of 20 years probation to follow for three other counts of attempted sexual battery and two counts of a lewd act upon a child. Bennett, who committed his offenses before Karche-sky v. State, 591 So.2d 930 (Fla.1992) was superseded by statute,¹ claims that victim injury points were erroneously assessed on his guideline scoresheet. Bennett’s score-sheet contains a handwritten notation that the victim injury points were for mere con[1278]*1278tact, not physical injury or trauma. The subtraction of these points would reduce the recommended and permitted ranges. The trial court denied relief stating that Bennett agreed in his plea to a specific term of years, thus rendering any seoresheet error harmless.

Bennett’s guideline seoresheet reflected a recommended range of 17-22 years incarceration, and a permitted range of 12-27 years. The written plea shows that Bennett agreed to the prosecutor’s recommendation of 20 years incarceration followed by 20 years probation. However, the written plea also contained a provision that Bennett would be sentenced under the guidelines, and would have the right to appeal a sentence which exceeded the guidelines.

Nowhere in the written plea did Bennett stipulate that the prepared seoresheet was correct or agree to a departure sentence. Because the proposed split sentence in the plea agreement was only a recommendation, and was presumed to be within the guidelines, Bennett did not waive all sentencing guideline issues in entering his pleas. The order denying relief is reversed, and the case is remanded for the trial court to determine whether Bennett’s victim injury points were properly assessed. See Harper v. State, 632 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); McGowan v. State, 586 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

Gregory Bennett appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). After entering nolo contende-re pleas, Bennett was sentenced on June 4, 1992 to 20 years incarceration for attempted sexual battery, and received a total of 20 years probation to follow for three other counts of attempted sexual battery and two counts of a lewd act upon a child. Bennett, who committed his offenses before Karche-sky v. State, 591 So.2d 930 (Fla.1992) was superseded by statute,¹ claims that victim injury points were erroneously assessed on his guideline scoresheet. Bennett’s score-sheet contains a handwritten notation that the victim injury points were for mere con[1278]*1278tact, not physical injury or trauma. The subtraction of these points would reduce the recommended and permitted ranges. The trial court denied relief stating that Bennett agreed in his plea to a specific term of years, thus rendering any seoresheet error harmless.

Bennett’s guideline seoresheet reflected a recommended range of 17-22 years incarceration, and a permitted range of 12-27 years. The written plea shows that Bennett agreed to the prosecutor’s recommendation of 20 years incarceration followed by 20 years probation. However, the written plea also contained a provision that Bennett would be sentenced under the guidelines, and would have the right to appeal a sentence which exceeded the guidelines.

Nowhere in the written plea did Bennett stipulate that the prepared seoresheet was correct or agree to a departure sentence. Because the proposed split sentence in the plea agreement was only a recommendation, and was presumed to be within the guidelines, Bennett did not waive all sentencing guideline issues in entering his pleas. The order denying relief is reversed, and the case is remanded for the trial court to determine whether Bennett’s victim injury points were properly assessed. See Harper v. State, 632 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); McGowan v. State, 586 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 So. 2d 1277, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3682, 1995 WL 214655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack