Waddell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Waddell v. State

694 So. 2d 146, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6183, 1997 WL 291492

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 4, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3380

StatusPublished

This text of 694 So. 2d 146 (Waddell 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

Waddell v. State, 694 So. 2d 146, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6183, 1997 WL 291492 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tyrone Waddell (Waddell) appeals the sentences imposed following the revocation of his probation in Case nos. 88-214 and 90-2855. The trial judge sentenced Waddell for both violations using the permitted sentencing guideline range. However, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll), which allows a judge to impose a sentence within the permitted sentencing guideline range without giving written reasons, did not become effective until July 1, 1988,¹ six months after Waddell committed the underlying crimes in Case no. 88-214. A trial judge may not apply the permitted sentencing guideline range to a defendant who committed his crime prior to the effective date of the 1988 amendments to rule 3.701(d). Snyder v. State, 615 So.2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). For this reason, we reverse and remand Case no. 88-214 for resentencing. Since it appears from the record that the trial judge believed that he was imposing a sentence within the guidelines, the judge may consider, upon remand, whether imposition of a departure sentence would be appropriate. Id. at 232. We affirm in all other respects.

MINER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Tyrone Waddell (Waddell) appeals the sentences imposed following the revocation of his probation in Case nos. 88-214 and 90-2855. The trial judge sentenced Waddell for both violations using the permitted sentencing guideline range. However, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll), which allows a judge to impose a sentence within the permitted sentencing guideline range without giving written reasons, did not become effective until July 1, 1988,¹ six months after Waddell committed the underlying crimes in Case no. 88-214. A trial judge may not apply the permitted sentencing guideline range to a defendant who committed his crime prior to the effective date of the 1988 amendments to rule 3.701(d). Snyder v. State, 615 So.2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). For this reason, we reverse and remand Case no. 88-214 for resentencing. Since it appears from the record that the trial judge believed that he was imposing a sentence within the guidelines, the judge may consider, upon remand, whether imposition of a departure sentence would be appropriate. Id. at 232. We affirm in all other respects.

MINER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 So. 2d 146, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6183, 1997 WL 291492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waddell-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack