Housen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Housen v. State

639 So. 2d 194, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6887, 1994 WL 330304

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 13, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 639 So. 2d 194 (Housen 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

Housen v. State, 639 So. 2d 194, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6887, 1994 WL 330304 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction, but reverse his sentence and remand for resentenc-ing.

Appellant’s offense date was April 13, 1988. His sentencing guidelines scoresheet indicated a recommended sentencing range of twelve to seventeen years. The trial court, however, erroneously relied upon that portion of the scoresheet which reflected a “permitted range” of seven to twenty-two years and sentenced appellant to twenty year’s incarceration and two years probation.

The “permitted range” concept does not apply to offenses committed prior to its effective date of July 1, 1988. Sequoia v. State, 624 So.2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So.2d 626 (Fla.1994); Smith v. State, 582 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Therefore, appellant was incorrectly sentenced. Appellee does not contest this conclusion.

Since the trial court appears to have been unaware that it was imposing a departure sentence, it must be allowed to consider on remand whether a departure sentence is appropriate, and if so, to set out valid reasons for such departure. State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Smith, 582 So.2d at 118.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.

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