State v. Knowles

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Knowles

553 So. 2d 391, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2910, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7011, 1989 WL 149585

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 1989

DocketNo. 88-3481

StatusPublished

This text of 553 So. 2d 391 (State v. Knowles) 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. Knowles, 553 So. 2d 391, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2910, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7011, 1989 WL 149585 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, Judge.

We reverse the appellee’s sentence imposed below the guideline range without [392]*392written reasons for departure. The appel-lee asserts that the sentence was valid, relying upon the amendment to the sentencing guidelines effective July 1, 1988. The amendment permits a discretionary one cell upward or downward departure without written reasons. However, the crime in question was committed prior to the effective date of the amendment.

Generally, the sentencing statute in effect on the date of the crime controls the validity of the sentence imposed, notwithstanding a subsequent amendment of the statute. Cf. Castle v. State, 330 So.2d 10 (Fla.1976); State v. Jefferson, 340 So.2d 1189 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); State v. Ussery, 543 So.2d 457 (Fla.5th DCA), rev. denied, 551 So.2d 464 (Fla.1989); Strachen v. State, 380 So.2d 487 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). We further note that there is no reason to assume that the legislature intended to grant a convicted defendant the benefit of a discretionary sentence below the guidelines without also imposing the corresponding risk of a sentence above the guidelines.¹

Therefore, the sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.

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

STONE, Judge.

We reverse the appellee’s sentence imposed below the guideline range without [392]*392written reasons for departure. The appel-lee asserts that the sentence was valid, relying upon the amendment to the sentencing guidelines effective July 1, 1988. The amendment permits a discretionary one cell upward or downward departure without written reasons. However, the crime in question was committed prior to the effective date of the amendment.

Generally, the sentencing statute in effect on the date of the crime controls the validity of the sentence imposed, notwithstanding a subsequent amendment of the statute. Cf. Castle v. State, 330 So.2d 10 (Fla.1976); State v. Jefferson, 340 So.2d 1189 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); State v. Ussery, 543 So.2d 457 (Fla.5th DCA), rev. denied, 551 So.2d 464 (Fla.1989); Strachen v. State, 380 So.2d 487 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). We further note that there is no reason to assume that the legislature intended to grant a convicted defendant the benefit of a discretionary sentence below the guidelines without also imposing the corresponding risk of a sentence above the guidelines.¹

Therefore, the sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

553 So. 2d 391, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2910, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7011, 1989 WL 149585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-knowles-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack