Gould v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gould v. State

584 So. 2d 232, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8187, 1991 WL 159165

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 1991

DocketNo. 91-113

StatusPublished

This text of 584 So. 2d 232 (Gould 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

Gould v. State, 584 So. 2d 232, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8187, 1991 WL 159165 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERSON, Judge.

Willie James Gould appeals his sentence for attempted robbery. He claims that, even with enhancement by the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1989), the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. We vacate the sentence for the attempted robbery.

In addition to the attempted robbery conviction, Gould also was convicted of three counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to seventeen years’ incarceration for the attempt, with concurrent terms of natural life for the three robberies. The life sentences were suspended, conditioned upon completion of fifteen years’ probation consecutive to the seventeen-year sentence imposed on the attempt conviction.

Attempted strong arm robbery is a felony of the third degree. §§ 777.04(4)(c), 812.13(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1989). The enhanced [233]*233statutory maximum penalty is ten years for a third-degree felony under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1989). Therefore, the seventeen-year sentence for the attempted robbery exceeds the statutory maximum by seven years.

While conceding the error, the state urges that the sentences for all four offenses should be reversed to ensure that Gould receives a total of seventeen years’ incarceration. The state relies on the sentencing guideline principle that all sentences imposed under a single scoresheet must be remanded when there is an error in the score. See, e.g., Lape v. State, 569 So.2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The problem with this reliance is that a scoresheet is irrelevant when a defendant is sentenced as a habitual offender. See § 775.084(4)(e), Fla.Stat. (1989). Careful consideration must be given to the sentence imposed simultaneously for each crime lest the conviction or sentence for one or more of the crimes is reversed. Since Gould’s sentence for the attempted robbery is the only one exceeding the statutory maximum, we can vacate only that one. The remaining sentences are valid.

We vacate only the sentence for the attempted robbery and remand for resentenc-ing.

Sentence VACATED; REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ„ concur.

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

PETERSON, Judge.

Willie James Gould appeals his sentence for attempted robbery. He claims that, even with enhancement by the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1989), the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. We vacate the sentence for the attempted robbery.

In addition to the attempted robbery conviction, Gould also was convicted of three counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to seventeen years’ incarceration for the attempt, with concurrent terms of natural life for the three robberies. The life sentences were suspended, conditioned upon completion of fifteen years’ probation consecutive to the seventeen-year sentence imposed on the attempt conviction.

Attempted strong arm robbery is a felony of the third degree. §§ 777.04(4)(c), 812.13(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1989). The enhanced [233]*233statutory maximum penalty is ten years for a third-degree felony under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1989). Therefore, the seventeen-year sentence for the attempted robbery exceeds the statutory maximum by seven years.

While conceding the error, the state urges that the sentences for all four offenses should be reversed to ensure that Gould receives a total of seventeen years’ incarceration. The state relies on the sentencing guideline principle that all sentences imposed under a single scoresheet must be remanded when there is an error in the score. See, e.g., Lape v. State, 569 So.2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The problem with this reliance is that a scoresheet is irrelevant when a defendant is sentenced as a habitual offender. See § 775.084(4)(e), Fla.Stat. (1989). Careful consideration must be given to the sentence imposed simultaneously for each crime lest the conviction or sentence for one or more of the crimes is reversed. Since Gould’s sentence for the attempted robbery is the only one exceeding the statutory maximum, we can vacate only that one. The remaining sentences are valid.

We vacate only the sentence for the attempted robbery and remand for resentenc-ing.

Sentence VACATED; REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 So. 2d 232, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8187, 1991 WL 159165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gould-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack