Case Name: FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RE: SENTENCING GUIDELINES (RULES 3.701 & 3.988)
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-04-21
Citations: 522 So. 2d 374
Docket Number: No. 71600
Parties: FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RE: SENTENCING GUIDELINES (RULES 3.701 & 3.988).
Judges: MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 522
Pages: 374–386

Head Matter:
FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RE: SENTENCING GUIDELINES (RULES 3.701 & 3.988).
No. 71600.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 21, 1988.
Leonard Holton, Director, Sentencing Guidelines Commission, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
The Per Curiam opinion in this matter was published at 520 So.2d 13. This publication incorporates modifications made on a motion for clarification.

Opinion:
AS MODIFIED ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
The Sentencing Guidelines Commission has petitioned this Court for changes in the sentencing guidelines rules. The first change is purely procedural. Its purpose is to:
Conform Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(c) and 3.988(a) to previously enacted statutory revisions repealing § 316.1931, Florida Statutes (1985) and transferring the statutory authority for the offense of DUI Manslaughter to § 316.193(3)(c)3, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). The existing statutory reference in Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(c) and 3.988(a) is to § 316.1931(2) and should be changed to § 316.193(3)(c)3.
The Florida Legislature in 1987 provided the Supreme Court with the authority to revise the statewide sentencing guidelines where the Supreme Court certifies that the revisions are necessary to conform the guidelines to previously adopted statutory revisions. Ch. 87-110, § 2, Laws of Florida. This revision is intended to correct the erroneous references in the existing sections of the sentencing guidelines as set out above.
The second change is to:
Adopt a revision to expand the discretion of the sentencing courts where the recommended range of punishment is the second or a higher cell. This revision would provide a sentencing court with the ability to increase or decrease the severity of a recommended sentence by one cell without requiring the sentencing court to provide written reasons or allowing for appellate review of the one cell increase or decrease. The proposal is referred to as "permitted ranges" and is the same proposal authored by the Florida Supreme Court in response to a recommendation of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission contained in the petition filed on October 1, 1986. See, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure re Sentencing Guidelines (Rule 3.701; 3.988), 509 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1987). The existing structure of cells of recommended ranges of punishment would be retained and the sentencing court would not be allowed, under this proposal, to increase the severity of a recommended sentence of the first cell without providing clear and convincing reasons in writing, subject to appellate review.
We approve this petition and recommend that the legislature approve these changes. One of the chief complaints about the guidelines is that in many instances the sentencing cells are too narrow for the circumstances of certain crimes. This modification would afford an opportunity to adjust sentences outside of the norm for the particular category. Nevertheless, it is contemplated that the use of the "permitted" range would be the exception rather than the rule and that most sentences will remain in the recommended cell. The expanded cells should result in fewer true departure sentences and hence fewer appeals. The amendments are attached to this opinion.
We should advise that there is a difference of opinion on whether this amendment would result in more prison days in the state penitentiary than exist under present guidelines. We have no reason to believe that it will.
In chapter 87-110, Laws of Florida, the legislature changed the standard for evaluating the sufficiency of reasons for departure from recommended ranges. The original version of this opinion, however, inadvertently overlooked that recent amendment to section 921.001, Florida Statutes (1987). On the commission's motion for clarification, therefore, we amend Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701b.6, d.8, and d.ll. to remove reference to "clear and convincing" reasons.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.