Opinion ID: 1729295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: tripp v. state

Text: In Tripp the defendant pled guilty to charges of burglary and grand theft. Tripp was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on the burglary charge and four years' probation on the grand theft charge consecutive to the burglary sentence. Following his release from prison, Tripp violated probation and it was revoked. The trial court sentenced him to four-and-a-half years' incarceration on the grand theft charge, but gave Tripp credit for the four years he previously served on the burglary charge. On appeal, the Second District reversed the award of credit for time served, reasoning that Tripp was not entitled to credit for time served on the grand theft charge on which he violated probation, as the original sentence imposed by the trial judge was the product of two separate convictions. So constructed, the total sentence imposed on Tripp exceeded by three years the sentence permitted under the guidelines. [1] This Court reversed the Second District, holding that when a trial court imposes a term of probation on one offense consecutive to a sentence of incarceration on another offense, credit for time served on the first offense must be awarded on the sentence imposed after revocation of probation on the second offense. Tripp, 622 So.2d at 942. [2] At the root of our decision was a desire to effectuate the intent underlying the sentencing guidelines. The Second District's decision would have permitted trial judges to circumvent the sentencing guidelines by structuring sentences so as to allow them to impose sentences in excess of the guidelines upon a violation of probation. Specifically, the sentence imposed by the trial court upon Tripp's probation violation, without giving Tripp credit for the time he served on the burglary charge against the grand theft charge, exceeded the highest permitted range for his total sentence. We explained: Thus, it appears that the sentencing method sanctioned by the district court of appeal is inconsistent with the intent of the sentencing guidelines. Under this method, trial judges can easily circumvent the guidelines by imposing the maximum incarcerative sentence for the primary offense and probation on the other counts. Then, upon violation of probation, the judge can impose a sentence which again meets the maximum incarcerative period. Without an award of credit for time served for the primary offense, the incarcerative period will exceed the range contemplated by the guidelines. Id. at 942. In so holding, we rejected the State's argument that Tripp was not entitled to credit for time served against his second conviction because he was convicted of two separate crimes and received two separate sentences: The State, however, ignores the fact that both offenses were factors that were weighed in the original sentencing through the use of a single scoresheet and must continue to be treated in relation to each other, even after a portion of the sentence has been violated. Id. Our holding in Tripp was interpreted by the First District in Bailey as creating, a `bright line' rule intended to simplify the application of sentencing guidelines and avoid confusion arising from the varying circumstances that can occur in different cases. 634 So.2d at 172. Bailey was convicted in 1989 of one count of grand theft, one count of carrying a concealed firearm, and one count of resisting arrest without violence. Bailey received a four-year sentence of imprisonment followed by one year of probation on the grand theft count, a five-year probationary sentence on the concealed firearm count to run consecutive to the sentence on the grand theft count, and a one-year probationary sentence on the resisting arrest without violence charge to run concurrently with the probationary sentence on the grand theft count. In sum, Bailey was sentenced to four years in prison to be followed by six years of probation. After serving the four-year term of imprisonment and being released, Bailey violated probation. The trial court revoked probation on all three counts and sentenced Bailey as follows: (1) five years in prison on the grand theft charge with four years' credit for time served; (2) two years in prison on the concealed firearm charge, without credit for time served, to run consecutively to count one; and (3) one year in prison on the resisting arrest without violence count, without credit for time served, to run concurrently with the sentences in counts one and two. In total, Bailey faced a total of three years in prison on the violation of probation, which brought his total sentence on the 1989 charges to seven years in prisonwithin the range permitted by the guidelines. Nevertheless, the First District applied Tripp to allow Bailey to receive credit for the four years served on count one against the sentences imposed on all counts on the violation of probation, although acknowledging that its application produced a bizarre result: We note, however, that the application of Tripp in this case leads to a bizarre result. The trial judge intended to require Bailey to serve a total of 7 years' imprisonment on the three offenses, and the sentence imposed is within the sentencing guidelines. However, on resentencing the circuit court can only impose a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment on counts 1 and 2 as they are third degree felonies (only one year can be imposed for the first degree misdemeanor in count 3). Four years' credit against each of these potential sentences, even if each is to be served consecutively, will erase any imprisonment on the misdemeanor count entirely, and leave only 1 year to be served on each of the felony counts. As a result, the total imprisonment that Bailey can be ordered to serve will be only 6 years. While we apply the bright line holding in Tripp in deciding this case, we question whether the supreme court considered and intended this potential result. Id. at 173. Accordingly, the Bailey court certified a question to this Court concerning its application of Tripp where the sentence imposed did not exceed that permitted by the guidelines. [3] We declined to exercise jurisdiction. See Bailey v. State, 637 So.2d 233 (Fla.1994).