You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Grubb v. State

Citations: 748 So. 2d 395; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 438; 2000 WL 51822Docket: No. 1D98-4142

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 24, 2000; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the defendant entered a plea of no contest to charges of resisting arrest with violence and attempted lewd assault, leading to a negotiated plea agreement that imposed a two-year probation. Following a subsequent violation of probation (VOP), the defendant admitted to technical violations. The State and defense counsel disputed the additional points to be added to the defendant's scoresheet, with the trial court initially adding twelve points for community sanction violations. However, upon review, it was determined that only six points should have been added, as per Rule 3.703(d)(17) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which applies to non-successive violations not stemming from new felony convictions. The trial court's lack of guidance from existing case law led to an erroneous sentence of 76.6 months in prison. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing with instructions to apply the correct point assessment. The decision emphasizes the necessity for accurate scoresheet calculations in determining appropriate sentencing ranges. All judges concurred in the decision to remand for resentencing.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Rule 3.703(d)(17) Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

Application: The rule dictates that only six points should be added for non-successive probation violations unless they stem from a new felony conviction.

Reasoning: According to Rule 3.703(d)(17) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, only six points should be assessed for non-successive violations unless they result from a new felony conviction.

Impact of Prior Case Law on Sentencing Decisions

Application: The trial judge did not have the benefit of prior case law that clarified the correct assessment of points for probation violations.

Reasoning: The court acknowledged that the trial judge lacked the guidance of prior case law addressing this issue...

Resentencing Due to Incorrect Scoresheet Assessment

Application: The court identified an error in the scoring of community sanction violations, necessitating a resentencing to correct the mistake.

Reasoning: Upon review, it was determined that the trial court incorrectly assessed twelve points instead of the appropriate six points for the community sanction violation.