Case ID: so2d_544/html/1127-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. STONE, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel TATE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 88-1405.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    June 14, 1989.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Marcy K. Allen, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Diane E. Leeds, (on the brief), West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   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 credit 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.

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.