RONALD SOLOMON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in imposing a guidelines sentence for an offense committed before the guidelines were effective, as the defendant did not affirmatively elect guidelines sentencing. The court affirmed the decision not to apply the Youthful Offender Act.
Ronald Solomon appeals his sentence for unarmed robbery following probation revocation. The trial court sentenced him under the sentencing guidelines,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Ronald Solomon appeals his sentence for unarmed robbery following revocation of probation, asserting that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence in excess of that allowed by the Youthful Offender Act, chapter 958, Florida Statutes, and that the trial court erred in sentencing him under the guidelines because he did not affirmatively elect guidelines sentencing. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for resentencing.
The trial court did not err in sentencing appellant without reference to the Youthful Offender Act. Brooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1985); Johnson v. State, 482 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
However, the trial court erred in imposing a guidelines sentence, because the offense was committed prior to October 1, 1983, and the record does not reflect that appellant affirmatively elected guidelines sentencing. Randolph v. State, 458 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Appellant has rejected the application of sentencing guidelines, both by objection in the trial court and in his appellate brief. His sentence is therefore REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for sentencing in accordance with the sentencing procedures in effect in 1981, when the crime was committed.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franklin v. State, 526 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…require that youthful offender sentences be in conformity with the guidelines.11 See State v. Weston, 510 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The defendant in this case affirmatively elected to be resentenced under the guidelines. See Solomon v. State, 490 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Furthermore, the guidelines are specifically made applicable to any sentence imposed after revocation of probation.12 The defendant’s sentence of fifteen years was clearly within the guidelines in effect at the time of his resen…
-
Poore v. State, 503 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…the sheriff for his use under section 944.17(5)(a), Florida Statutes, in returning the defendant into the state correctional system. Brooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1985); Lynch v. State, 491 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Solomon v. State, 490 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. de [*1286] nied, 500 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1986); Crosby v. State, 487 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Hill v. State, 486 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and other cases are youthful offender cases in which the courts were concer…
Authorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 1985)
- Randolph v. State, 458 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Johnson v. State, 482 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)