Rice v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rice v. State

546 So. 2d 784, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1721, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4092, 1989 WL 78871

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1704

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 546 So. 2d 784 (Rice 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

Rice v. State, 546 So. 2d 784, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1721, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4092, 1989 WL 78871 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was sentenced in case number 87-344-CF on July 21, 1988, in Putnam County, Florida, by one circuit judge and on the same day in the same county, he was sentenced on case number 88-400-CF by another circuit judge. Each judge used a separate and different sentencing guidelines scoresheet with each scoresheet showing a different prior record.

The use of two scoresheets to calculate the defendant’s two sentences was error¹ under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1) which mandates that one score-sheet be prepared for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. Washington v. State, 539 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Ford v. State, 528 So.2d 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Arnett v. State, 526 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also, Stokes v. State, 512 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hagins v. State, 509 So.2d 1244 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). In Gallagher v. State, 476 So.2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), this court held that the trial judge has the burden to assure that all of the defendant’s cases pending for sentencing in a particular county are disposed of using one scoresheet.² Accordingly, the sentences are vacated and the case remanded for resentencing using one properly calculated scoresheet.

SENTENCED VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

COBB, COWART and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was sentenced in case number 87-344-CF on July 21, 1988, in Putnam County, Florida, by one circuit judge and on the same day in the same county, he was sentenced on case number 88-400-CF by another circuit judge. Each judge used a separate and different sentencing guidelines scoresheet with each scoresheet showing a different prior record.

The use of two scoresheets to calculate the defendant’s two sentences was error¹ under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1) which mandates that one score-sheet be prepared for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. Washington v. State, 539 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Ford v. State, 528 So.2d 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Arnett v. State, 526 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also, Stokes v. State, 512 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hagins v. State, 509 So.2d 1244 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). In Gallagher v. State, 476 So.2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), this court held that the trial judge has the burden to assure that all of the defendant’s cases pending for sentencing in a particular county are disposed of using one scoresheet.² Accordingly, the sentences are vacated and the case remanded for resentencing using one properly calculated scoresheet.

SENTENCED VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

COBB, COWART and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 784, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1721, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4092, 1989 WL 78871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack