Hale v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hale v. State

698 So. 2d 1236, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2135, 1997 WL 106834

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1997

DocketNo. 95-04468

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 698 So. 2d 1236 (Hale 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

Hale v. State, 698 So. 2d 1236, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2135, 1997 WL 106834 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was serving probation on a grand theft committed in 1991 when he violated his probation by committing another grand theft on January 22, 1995. He pleaded to both the violation of probation and the grand theft, and the court imposed two concurrent four-year terms of imprisonment. He challenges only the four-year sentence imposed for the 1995 offense.

On the separate scoresheet prepared for the 1995 offense, the points totaled less than forty. Thus, according to the guidelines enacted for 1994, the court may not impose a state prison sentence. As the state concedes, error occurred when the trial court failed to impose the sentence recommended under the 1994 guidelines for the 1995 offense. See § 921.001(4)(b)l-2, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994) (1994 guidelines apply to sentencing for all non-capital felonies committed on or after January 1, 1994); Allen v. State, 664 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (two score-sheets must be used at sentencing involving offenses committed both before January 1, 1994, and on or after January 1, 1994); Heath v. State, 656 So.2d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (same); Wood v. State, 655 So.2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (same).

We reverse the appellant’s sentence in the circuit court case no. 95-0058 and remand for the trial court to impose a sentence within the 1994 guidelines.

Convictions affirmed; sentence reversed and remanded.

FRANK, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was serving probation on a grand theft committed in 1991 when he violated his probation by committing another grand theft on January 22, 1995. He pleaded to both the violation of probation and the grand theft, and the court imposed two concurrent four-year terms of imprisonment. He challenges only the four-year sentence imposed for the 1995 offense.

On the separate scoresheet prepared for the 1995 offense, the points totaled less than forty. Thus, according to the guidelines enacted for 1994, the court may not impose a state prison sentence. As the state concedes, error occurred when the trial court failed to impose the sentence recommended under the 1994 guidelines for the 1995 offense. See § 921.001(4)(b)l-2, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994) (1994 guidelines apply to sentencing for all non-capital felonies committed on or after January 1, 1994); Allen v. State, 664 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (two score-sheets must be used at sentencing involving offenses committed both before January 1, 1994, and on or after January 1, 1994); Heath v. State, 656 So.2d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (same); Wood v. State, 655 So.2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (same).

We reverse the appellant’s sentence in the circuit court case no. 95-0058 and remand for the trial court to impose a sentence within the 1994 guidelines.

Convictions affirmed; sentence reversed and remanded.

FRANK, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 So. 2d 1236, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2135, 1997 WL 106834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack