Roundtree v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roundtree v. State

528 So. 2d 436, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1434, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2526, 1988 WL 60466

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1829

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 528 So. 2d 436 (Roundtree 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

Roundtree v. State, 528 So. 2d 436, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1434, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2526, 1988 WL 60466 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, Judge.

Roderick Roundtree appeals his sentences for three counts of DUI manslaughter, one count of possession of cannabis, and one count of driving while his license was suspended or revoked. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court departed from the presumptive guidelines sentence for invalid reasons and therefore reverse for resentencing.

The trial court stated as a reason for departure that the appellant’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit and that the appellant drove a vehicle and crashed head-on into another vehicle causing three deaths. This fact is an inherent component of DUI manslaughter and therefore will not support a departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence. See § 316.193(3)(c)3, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986); State v. Cote, 487 So.2d 1039 (Fla.1986).

The trial court also stated as reasons for departure that the appellant’s driving privilege had previously been suspend[437]*437ed or revoked and not reinstated and that the appellant had previously been convicted of driving under the influence. However, these reasons were scored on the appellant’s scoresheet as an additional offense at conviction and prior record, respectively. Consequently, neither of these reasons supports a departure sentence either. Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985).

Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand this cause for resen-tencing within the guidelines.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

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

HALL, Judge.

Roderick Roundtree appeals his sentences for three counts of DUI manslaughter, one count of possession of cannabis, and one count of driving while his license was suspended or revoked. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court departed from the presumptive guidelines sentence for invalid reasons and therefore reverse for resentencing.

The trial court stated as a reason for departure that the appellant’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit and that the appellant drove a vehicle and crashed head-on into another vehicle causing three deaths. This fact is an inherent component of DUI manslaughter and therefore will not support a departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence. See § 316.193(3)(c)3, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986); State v. Cote, 487 So.2d 1039 (Fla.1986).

The trial court also stated as reasons for departure that the appellant’s driving privilege had previously been suspend[437]*437ed or revoked and not reinstated and that the appellant had previously been convicted of driving under the influence. However, these reasons were scored on the appellant’s scoresheet as an additional offense at conviction and prior record, respectively. Consequently, neither of these reasons supports a departure sentence either. Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985).

Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand this cause for resen-tencing within the guidelines.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 So. 2d 436, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1434, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2526, 1988 WL 60466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roundtree-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack