Tate v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tate v. State

544 So. 2d 1127, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1431, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3349, 1989 WL 62392

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1405

StatusPublished

This text of 544 So. 2d 1127 (Tate 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

Tate v. State, 544 So. 2d 1127, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1431, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3349, 1989 WL 62392 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for various violations of his probation. The original sentence was eighteen months’ imprisonment followed by one year of probation, or a category “3” probationary split sentence. See Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988). Upon violation of probation, therefore, the sentencing judge was permitted “to impose any sentence he or she originally might have imposed, with [1128]*1128credit for time served and subject to the guidelines recommendation.” Poore, 531 So.2d at 164. Appellant’s sentence exceeds this limitation.

It was also incumbent upon the state to provide the court at the sentencing hearing with a new and corrected scoresheet. See State v. Amico, 525 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This was not done.

We reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing to comply with Poore and Amico, at which time the trial court may also consider rule 3.701 d.14., Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur. STONE, J., concurs specially with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for various violations of his probation. The original sentence was eighteen months’ imprisonment followed by one year of probation, or a category “3” probationary split sentence. See Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988). Upon violation of probation, therefore, the sentencing judge was permitted “to impose any sentence he or she originally might have imposed, with [1128]*1128credit for time served and subject to the guidelines recommendation.” Poore, 531 So.2d at 164. Appellant’s sentence exceeds this limitation.

It was also incumbent upon the state to provide the court at the sentencing hearing with a new and corrected scoresheet. See State v. Amico, 525 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This was not done.

We reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing to comply with Poore and Amico, at which time the trial court may also consider rule 3.701 d.14., Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur. STONE, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 1127, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1431, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3349, 1989 WL 62392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack