Callihan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Callihan v. State

529 So. 2d 322, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3428, 1988 WL 77953

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 1988

DocketNo. 86-3061

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 529 So. 2d 322 (Callihan 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

Callihan v. State, 529 So. 2d 322, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3428, 1988 WL 77953 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHEB, Judge.

The defendant, Christopher Callihan, appeals the revocation of his probation and his five year sentence for possession and sale of cannabis, imposed after the court found he had violated his probation. Calli-han focuses his argument on his not selecting to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. Furthermore, he argues that even if he had chosen to be sentenced under the guidelines, the court imposed a sentence in excess of the presumptive guidelines sentence without issuing written reasons for departure. As we find that the defendant did not affirmatively select to be sentenced under the guidelines, we do not reach the departure issue.

Defendant’s offenses were committed before the sentencing guidelines became effective on October 1, 1983. Section 921.-001(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), forecloses the application of sentencing guidelines to crimes perpetrated prior to that date absent an affirmative selection by the defendant. The record reflects that when the court asked defense counsel if defendant chose to be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines, she said, “I can’t tell from my record whether they were elected previously or not ... I haven’t discussed this with Mr. Callihan. I would like to discuss it with him.” Moments later when the prosecutor said that “guidelines have been elected,” neither the defense counsel nor the defendant corrected that assertion. After defense counsel responded to the court’s questions about a guidelines departure case produced by the prosecutor, the judge sentenced the defendant with reference to a recommended guidelines sentence.

The state argues that the silence on the part of the defendant and his counsel suggests waiver or acquiescence, but from our view of the record, we believe it does not indicate the affirmative, clear, and unequivocal choice the statute requires. Jordan v. State, 460 So.2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Nevertheless, since the court sentenced the defendant within the statutory maximum, a reversal of the sentence is not necessary.

[323]*323Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence with the proviso that the sentence shall be considered a nonguidelines sentence.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

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

SCHEB, Judge.

The defendant, Christopher Callihan, appeals the revocation of his probation and his five year sentence for possession and sale of cannabis, imposed after the court found he had violated his probation. Calli-han focuses his argument on his not selecting to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. Furthermore, he argues that even if he had chosen to be sentenced under the guidelines, the court imposed a sentence in excess of the presumptive guidelines sentence without issuing written reasons for departure. As we find that the defendant did not affirmatively select to be sentenced under the guidelines, we do not reach the departure issue.

Defendant’s offenses were committed before the sentencing guidelines became effective on October 1, 1983. Section 921.-001(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), forecloses the application of sentencing guidelines to crimes perpetrated prior to that date absent an affirmative selection by the defendant. The record reflects that when the court asked defense counsel if defendant chose to be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines, she said, “I can’t tell from my record whether they were elected previously or not ... I haven’t discussed this with Mr. Callihan. I would like to discuss it with him.” Moments later when the prosecutor said that “guidelines have been elected,” neither the defense counsel nor the defendant corrected that assertion. After defense counsel responded to the court’s questions about a guidelines departure case produced by the prosecutor, the judge sentenced the defendant with reference to a recommended guidelines sentence.

The state argues that the silence on the part of the defendant and his counsel suggests waiver or acquiescence, but from our view of the record, we believe it does not indicate the affirmative, clear, and unequivocal choice the statute requires. Jordan v. State, 460 So.2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Nevertheless, since the court sentenced the defendant within the statutory maximum, a reversal of the sentence is not necessary.

[323]*323Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence with the proviso that the sentence shall be considered a nonguidelines sentence.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 So. 2d 322, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3428, 1988 WL 77953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callihan-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack