Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1989

Tate v. State

Tate v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided June 14, 1989 · Hersey, Stone, Warner
544 So. 2d 1127; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1431; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3349; 1989 WL 62392 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Tate v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for various violations of his probation. The original sentence was eighteen months’ imprisonment followed by one year of probation, or a category “3” probationary split sentence. See Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1988). Upon violation of probation, therefore, the sentencing judge was permitted “to impose any sentence he or she originally might have imposed, with *1128credit for time served and subject to the guidelines recommendation.” Poore, 531 So.2d at 164. Appellant’s sentence exceeds this limitation.

It was also incumbent upon the state to provide the court at the sentencing hearing with a new and corrected scoresheet. See State v. Amico, 525 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This was not done.

We reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing to comply with Poore and Amico, at which time the trial court may also consider rule 3.701 d.14., Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur. STONE, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Concurring Opinion

STONE, Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur specially only to note that, upon resentencing, the five year sentence may be reimposed if it falls within the guideline range or the permitted increase for a violation of probation.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.