GLENNIS COMBS, 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.
Glennis Combs appealed his sentences, claiming he was entitled to be sentenced on multiple cases simultaneously under Clark v. State. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected this argument because the pending case lacked a guilty plea or verdict, but vacated and remanded sentences on two counts due to ambiguity regarding whether sentences were to run concurrent or consecutive.
A defendant is not entitled to simultaneous sentencing on pending cases unless a verdict or guilty plea has been obtained on those cases. The court affirmed all convictions and sentences except for Counts II and IV, which were vacated and remanded for resentencing due to ambiguity in the record about the intended concurrent or consecutive nature of the sentences.
[1] An offense is generally not considered "pending" for guidelines sentencing purposes unless a verdict or plea of guilty or nolo contendere has been obtained.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to be sentenced on a pending case at the same time as another case unless the defendant offers to plead guilty to the pending case.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701d.l., an offense is generally not "pending" for guidelines sentencing purposes unless a verdict or plea of guilty or nolo contendere has been obtained”
Establishes the legal standard for when multiple cases can be sentenced together under sentencing guidelines
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCombs had a criminal case scheduled for trial when he was sentenced on another case. He did not offer to plead guilty on the pending case. The trial c…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
The defendant had a criminal case scheduled for trial at the time he was sentenced on another case and appeals claiming that under Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla.1991), he was entitled to be sentenced at the same time on both cases. Unlike Foster v. State, 576 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), where the defendant offered to plead guilty on two other cases so that he could be sentenced under a common scoresheet with the first ease, the defendant in this case did not offer to plead guilty on the pending case and we follow Joyce v. State, 586 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and that portion of Clark v. State that recognizes that under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701d.l., an offense is generally not “pending” for guidelines sentencing purposes unless a verdict or plea of guilty or nolo contendere has been obtained.
. However, we set aside the sentences relating to Counts II and IV in Case Number CR90-1312 because the record on appeal is not clear and we cannot determine and resolve a controversy between the State and the defendant as to whether or not there is a conflict in the oral pronouncement of the trial court and the written sentences relating to whether the 12 year incarceration sentences imposed in those counts were to run concurrent or consecutive. The written sentences of two 12 year incarcerative periods to run consecutive constitutes 24 years incarceration which exceeds the 5V2-12 year permitted guidelines range sentence.
We affirm the convictions and the sentences other than to Counts II and IV which sentences we vacate and remand the cause for resentencing on those counts.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED, except as to Counts II and IV which are vacated with REMAND FOR RESENTENCING.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
In my opinion the sentencing court should have granted the motion of appellant to delay sentencing. This is within the spirit, at least, of the sentencing guidelines and the supreme court’s rulings on them. All crimes were allegedly committed about the same time and charged contemporane ously and thus should all be disposed of at one sentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 619 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ses pending before the court for sentencing. An offense is generally not pending for guidelines sentencing purposes unless a verdict or plea of guilty or nolo contendere has been obtained, Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla.1991); Combs v. State, 604 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 2 (Fla.1993). Both of the cases involving appellant were pending before the trial court when he appeared. In the instant case this court had reversed the sentences and remanded for resentencing. “Pending”…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 1991)
- Almertis Stephens v. State, 572 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 1991)
- Foster v. State, 576 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Joyce v. State, 586 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)