Case Name: Leonardo MORALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-01-19
Citations: 613 So. 2d 922
Docket Number: No. 90-2885
Parties: Leonardo MORALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and COPE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 613
Pages: 922–923

Head Matter:
Leonardo MORALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 90-2885.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 19, 1993.
Rehearing Denied March 23, 1993.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Giselle D. Lylen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and COPE, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals the trial court's imposition of a departure sentence. We reverse.
The trial court initially sentenced the defendant in April, 1986. The court imposed a departure sentence and prepared a written order. However, the written order was filed seven days after the sentencing.
Due to clerical error, an appeal was not timely commenced. A belated appeal was later allowed. In the meantime the Florida Supreme Court announced Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990). Because the written departure order had not been entered on the date of sentencing, this court held that Ree controlled. The sentencing order was reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. Morales v. State, 563 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (Morales I).
Shortly after we issued Morales I, the supreme court clarified Ree and held that Ree was not to be applied retroactively. Ree, 565 So.2d at 1331. The trial court followed Ree as clarified, and again imposed a departure sentence. This court denied defendant's motion to enforce mandate, invoked the manifest injustice exception to the law of the case doctrine, and withdrew the Morales I opinion. Morales v. State, 580 So.2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (Morales II).
After conclusion of proceedings in the trial court, Morales appealed. In the meantime the supreme court receded from so much of Ree as indicated that Ree would be given prospective application only. The supreme court ruled that Ree should be given retroactive application in cases which were in the "pipeline" when Ree was issued. Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992). We therefore reinstate Morales I, reverse the sentencing order, and remand the case for resentencing within the guidelines.
The trial court incorrectly scored victim injury points in this case. The supreme court's opinion in Karchesky v. State, 591 So.2d 930 (Fla.1992) is applicable. The legislature's recent amendments to section 921.001, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), which took effect April 8, 1992, see ch. 92-135, § 4, do not apply to this case. The rule must be applied as it existed at the time of the offense. See Madrey v. State, 594 So.2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART, J" concur.
.The State and the defendant agree that the new scoresheet should reflect the defendant's other convictions which were not factored into the original scoresheet.