Gause v. State
This text of 491 So. 2d 320 (Gause 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.
Opinion
Timothy Vernon GAUSE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
J. Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and L.S. Alperstein, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Vernon Gause was sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act on June 28, 1985. The crime for which he was sentenced occurred on November 12, 1984. Sentences imposed under the Youthful Offender Act after July 1, 1984, must conform to the sentencing guidelines. The Florida Bar: Amendment to Rules of Criminal Procedure (3.701, 3.988 Sentencing Guidelines), 451 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1984); Hudson v. State, 475 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Braddock v. State, 472 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Rule 3.701(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires that a guidelines scoresheet be prepared for each defendant which must include all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. The fact that the trial court purports to give reasons for departure does not dispense with the requirement of a scoresheet since, without knowing the presumptive sentence under the guidelines, the court is without sufficient information to decide whether to depart from the guidelines. Lawrence v. State, 470 So.2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Myrick v. State, 461 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
No scoresheet was filed in the instant case and the record does not indicate that the trial court was aware of the presumptive sentence. Because there is no indication of what the presumptive sentence should be, it is impossible to determine whether appellant's sentence is a departure from the guidelines.
*321 Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
DANAHY, C.J., and SCHEB and HALL, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
491 So. 2d 320, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gause-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.