BASIL W. HOUSEN, 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 applying the 'permitted range' sentencing concept to an offense committed before its effective date, requiring resentencing.
Appellant was convicted for an offense committed on April 13, 1988. The trial court sentenced appellant to twenty years incarceration and two years pr…
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 Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction, but reverse his sentence and remand for resentencing.
Appellant’s offense date was April 13, 1988. His sentencing guidelines scoresheet indicated a recommended sentencing range of twelve to seventeen years. The trial court, however, erroneously relied upon that portion of the scoresheet which reflected a “permitted 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 unaware that it was imposing a departure sentence, it must be allowed to consider on remand whether a departure sentence is appropriate, and if so, to set out valid reasons for such departure. State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1989); Smith, 582 So. 2d at 118.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aleño Santana Madrigal v. State, 683 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ot give written reasons. Because it appears that the trial court was not aware that it was imposing an upward departure sentence, the trial court upon remand may consider a departure sentence if proper written reasons are given. See Housen v. State, 639 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Second, carrying a concealed firearm (Count III) is a third degree felony which carries a statutory maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. See §§ 790.01(2) & 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1995). Accordingly, the combined perio…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989)
- Strongbull Sequoia v. State, 624 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Cliff Anthony Smith v. State, 582 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)