State v. Amico

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Amico

525 So. 2d 515, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1310, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2213, 1988 WL 53032

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2708

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 525 So. 2d 515 (State v. Amico) 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

State v. Amico, 525 So. 2d 515, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1310, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2213, 1988 WL 53032 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

Anthony Amico was charged with armed robbery. He entered a plea of nolo conten-dere and was sentenced to two and one-half years’ imprisonment to be followed by two and one-half years’ probation. Appellee was released on probation after fourteen months in jail. He subsequently violated the terms of his probation and the trial court held a hearing at which appellee admitted the violation. He was sentenced to sixteen months in prison with credit for time served, which represented the remainder of the two and one-half year sentence originally imposed.

At the hearing on appellee’s probation violation the trial court failed to complete or to have available a new scoresheet. This was error. Rule 3.701 d.14., Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides: “Sentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control must be in accordance with the guidelines.” Rule 3.701 d.l. provides: “One guideline score-sheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.”

A trial court must have a guidelines scoresheet available at sentencing. Kolbe v. State, 480 So.2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). See also Nelson v. State, 498 So.2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Finklea v. State, 471 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

The failure of the trial judge to have a new completed scoresheet before him at appellee’s probation revocation hearing was reversible error.

REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

Anthony Amico was charged with armed robbery. He entered a plea of nolo conten-dere and was sentenced to two and one-half years’ imprisonment to be followed by two and one-half years’ probation. Appellee was released on probation after fourteen months in jail. He subsequently violated the terms of his probation and the trial court held a hearing at which appellee admitted the violation. He was sentenced to sixteen months in prison with credit for time served, which represented the remainder of the two and one-half year sentence originally imposed.

At the hearing on appellee’s probation violation the trial court failed to complete or to have available a new scoresheet. This was error. Rule 3.701 d.14., Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides: “Sentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control must be in accordance with the guidelines.” Rule 3.701 d.l. provides: “One guideline score-sheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.”

A trial court must have a guidelines scoresheet available at sentencing. Kolbe v. State, 480 So.2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). See also Nelson v. State, 498 So.2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Finklea v. State, 471 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

The failure of the trial judge to have a new completed scoresheet before him at appellee’s probation revocation hearing was reversible error.

REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 So. 2d 515, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1310, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2213, 1988 WL 53032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-amico-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack