Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant, Gordon, challenged the legality of his sentences after pleading guilty to two counts of delivery of cocaine and one count of possession of cannabis. Gordon was sentenced to thirty months of incarceration followed by twenty-four months of community control for the delivery charges, to be served concurrently, and received a sentence for the possession charge with credit for time served. On appeal, Gordon argued that his sentences for the delivery charges were improper departure sentences because no written reasons for such departures were provided in the record. Although his argument had been previously rejected in Francis v. State, he relied on the precedent set by Hankey v. State, which mandated that similar sentences be vacated under these circumstances. The appellate court agreed with Gordon, finding the absence of written reasons for departure, and consequently vacated the sentences for the delivery charges, remanding the case for resentencing. The judgment was affirmed, but the sentences were vacated and remanded, with Judges DAUKSCH and COWART concurring in the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Concurrent Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Gordon's sentences for the delivery charges were to be served concurrently, reflecting the application of concurrent sentencing principles in his case.
Reasoning: Gordon pleaded guilty to two counts of delivery of cocaine and one count of possession of cannabis, resulting in a sentence of thirty months of incarceration followed by twenty-four months of community control for the delivery charges, served concurrently.
Credit for Time Servedsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Gordon received credit for time served on his possession charge, illustrating the legal principle of granting credit for pre-trial detention.
Reasoning: He also received a sentence of one hundred seven days for the possession charge, with credit for time served.
Sentencing Departure and Written Reasons Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied this principle by vacating the sentences due to the absence of written reasons for the departure, consistent with precedent in Hankey v. State.
Reasoning: The court found that, as in Hankey, there were no written reasons for departure in Gordon's case, leading to the vacation of his sentences and remanding for resentencing.