STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
SAMMIE EARL BANKSTON, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1995-08-24
No. 85264
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
659 So. 2d 268 Florida Supreme Court (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

When a defendant is sentenced for both a probation violation and a new offense, the trial court can impose the most severe sentencing scheme permissible for both crimes, not limited to a one-cell increase for the probation violation.


Facts & Procedural History

The Second District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding sentencing guidelines when a defendant is sentenced for a new felony and a probatio…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the Second District’s decision in Bankston v. State, 651 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), wherein the district court certified the following question of great public importance:

WHERE A DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED AT THE SAME SENTENCING HEARING FOR A NEW FELONY AND A VIOLATION OF PROBATION GROUNDED UPON THE NEW FELONY, IS THE TRIAL COURT LIMITED TO A ONE-CELL INCREASE FROM THE ORIGINAL SCORESHEET UNDER THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR THE VIOLATION OF PROBATION, PURSUANT TO GRADY v. STATE, 618 S0.2D 341 (FLA. 2D DCA 1993), OR CAN THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSE THE MOST SEVERE SENTENCING SCHEME PERMISSIBLE AS TO BOTH CRIMES AS OUTLINED IN STATE v. TITO, 616 S0.2D 39 (FLA. 1993)?

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In State v. Lamar, 659 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1995), we have answered an identical question. In so doing, we held that when a defendant is being sentenced for both a violation of probation and a new substantive offense, the trial court is not limited to a one-cell bump on the original seoresheet for the violation of probation offense, but is permitted to use the seoresheet which recommends the most severe sanction.

Therefore, we quash the district court’s decision to the extent it is inconsistent with Lamar, and direct that further proceedings be in accord herewith.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Clozell Richardson v. State, 730 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
    …red reflecting the different primary offense in each case. In preparing each scoresheet, the sentencing court shall use the original score-sheet plus any point enhancement properly allowable for that case under the guidelines. See State v. Bankston, 659 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1995). Reversed and remanded for resentencing. FULMER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw