Sequoia v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sequoia v. State

624 So. 2d 381, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9464, 1993 WL 369352

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 1993

DocketNo. 92-0641

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 624 So. 2d 381 (Sequoia 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

Sequoia v. State, 624 So. 2d 381, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9464, 1993 WL 369352 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The pro se appellant raises a number of issues, one of which requires discussion and our remand for resentencing. We affirm, without discussion, the revocation of appellant’s probation.

The trial court sentenced appellant to nine years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s guidelines scoresheet reflected a recommended sentence of five and one-half to seven years and a permitted sentence of four and one-half to nine years. As the state concedes, the permitted guidelines ranges, effective July 1, 1988, cannot be applied to a defendant who committed his crimes prior to that date. Snyder v. State, 615 So.2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Despite this, the state argues that appellant’s sentence should be affirmed because the trial court may impose any sentence it originally might have imposed plus a one-cell bump up. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14); Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992). While the state is correct as to the trial court’s authority to impose a one-cell bump up, our review of the record does not support the state’s claim that the trial court intended to impose the maximum sentence possible. Accordingly, we remand to give the trial court the opportunity to express its intent clearly.

GLICKSTEIN, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The pro se appellant raises a number of issues, one of which requires discussion and our remand for resentencing. We affirm, without discussion, the revocation of appellant’s probation.

The trial court sentenced appellant to nine years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s guidelines scoresheet reflected a recommended sentence of five and one-half to seven years and a permitted sentence of four and one-half to nine years. As the state concedes, the permitted guidelines ranges, effective July 1, 1988, cannot be applied to a defendant who committed his crimes prior to that date. Snyder v. State, 615 So.2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Despite this, the state argues that appellant’s sentence should be affirmed because the trial court may impose any sentence it originally might have imposed plus a one-cell bump up. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14); Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992). While the state is correct as to the trial court’s authority to impose a one-cell bump up, our review of the record does not support the state’s claim that the trial court intended to impose the maximum sentence possible. Accordingly, we remand to give the trial court the opportunity to express its intent clearly.

GLICKSTEIN, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 So. 2d 381, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9464, 1993 WL 369352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sequoia-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack