Opinion

Lamar v. State

  • 648 So. 2d 775
  • 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11961
  • 1994 WL 685606
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Dec 9, 1994
Status
Published
Author
Parker
On the bench
Lazzara, Parker, Ryder
Cited by
7 cases

although new scoresheet is prepared for new substantive offense, trial court is limited to one-cell bump on the original scoresheet when sentencing for violation of probation

How later courts described this case

  • although new scoresheet is prepared for new substantive offense, trial court is limited to one-cell bump on the original scoresheet when sentencing for violation of probation

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

PARKER, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. I believe the supreme court in Tito has approved of a procedure when sentencing for a new felony and a violation of probation grounded upon the new felony which requires a trial judge to utilize a single scoresheet which recommends the most severe sanction. I further believe that Grady is inconsistent with the holding in Tito. The procedure which this court outlined in Grady continues to use more than one scoresheet. Grady requires the court to use the scoresheet which recommends the most severe sanction for the sentence on the new felony but restricts the sentence imposed for the violation of probation to the recommended sentence of the original score-sheet with the permitted enhancements for each violation of probation. I disagree with *777 this court’s pronouncement in Grady that this sentencing procedure is in accord with Tito. This ease is clear evidence that Grady and Tito are inconsistent because, as the majority holds, the sentencing scheme utilized in this case complies with Tito but fails to comply with Grady. I do not find Williams persuasive in support of the majority opinion because that case does not indicate that the new offense which caused the violation of probation was before the trial court for sentencing at the same time as sentencing for the violations of probation.

I would affirm the trial court. I, however, agree with the certified question which the majority has posed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.