STRONGBULL SEQUOIA A/K/A THEODORE BOLLMAN, 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 affirmed the revocation of probation but remanded for resentencing because the trial court applied guidelines effective after the defendant's crimes and failed to clearly express its sentencing intent regarding the permissible one-cell bump-up.
A trial court must clearly express its intent when imposing a sentence within the permitted guidelines range, and remand is required when the record does not support that the court intended to impose the maximum sentence.
[1] Guidelines effective after a defendant's crime date cannot be applied to that defendant, and the trial court must clearly express its intent when imposing a sentence with…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment; his guidelines scoresheet reflected a recommended sentence of five and one-half to seven years an…
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 Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The pro se appellant raises a number of issues, one of which requires discussion and our remand for resentencing. We affirm, without discussion, the revocation of appellant’s probation.
The trial court sentenced appellant to nine years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s guidelines scoresheet reflected a recommended sentence of five and one-half to seven years and a permitted sentence of four and one-half to nine years. As the state concedes, the permitted guidelines ranges, effective July 1, 1988, cannot be applied to a defendant who committed his crimes prior to that date. Snyder v. State, 615 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Despite this, the state argues that appellant’s sentence should be affirmed because the trial court may impose any sentence it originally might have imposed plus a one-cell bump up. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14); Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992). While the state is correct as to the trial court’s authority to impose a one-cell bump up, our review of the record does not support the state’s claim that the trial court intended to impose the maximum sentence possible. Accordingly, we remand to give the trial court the opportunity to express its intent clearly.
GLICKSTEIN, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Donnell, 634 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Shanks v. State, 624 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Phillips v. State, 623 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). DELL, C.J., and STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Curt Allman v. State, 642 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…that, unlike Kelly and Williams, the appellant, Allman, pled guilty to the crime charged. Thus, the state argues that Allman was aware of, and waived, the defense that police-manufactured crack cocaine violates due process. But see Shanks v. State, 624 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), wherein this court held that a conviction and sentence on a drug charge that was obtained through the use of illegally manufactured crack cocaine in a reverse sting operation could be raised by way of postcon-viction motion, des…
-
Basil W. Housen v. State, 639 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…d range” of seven to twenty-two years and sentenced appellant to twenty year’s incarceration and two years probation. The “permitted range” concept does not apply to offenses committed prior to its effective date of July 1, 1988. Sequoia v. State, 624 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So. 2d 626 (Fla.1994); Smith v. State, 582 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Therefore, appellant was incorrectly sentenced. Appellee does not contest this conclusion. Since the trial court appears to have been u…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- Snyder v. State, 615 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)