From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 7, 1995
658 So. 2d 118 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Opinion

No. 94-00686.

June 7, 1995. Rehearing Denied August 7, 1995.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Polk County, Daniel True Andrews, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anne Y. Swing, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Willie Watson, III, appeals the sentences imposed in thirteen felony cases involving twenty-seven counts. He presents no errors related to his convictions and we affirm. However, because Watson's sentences contain errors, we reverse and remand for resentencing.

Circuit court case numbers CF92-04650, CF92-05073, CF92-05074, CF92-05075, CF92-05076, CF92-5079, CF92-05080, CF92-05081, CF92-05231, CF92-05615, CF92-05616, CF92-05617, and CF92-05618.

Circuit court case no. 92-05231 is a three count information on which Watson was sentenced to three consecutive habitual offender terms in prison. He argues that pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993), habitual offender sentences for multiple offenses committed during a single criminal episode must run concurrently. The record does not contain facts that would support consecutive sentences. Therefore, these sentences are reversed and remanded for resentencing. On remand, if the state presents facts to prove separate criminal episodes, consecutive sentences may again be imposed. If the state is unable to prove separate episodes, the sentencing court must impose concurrent habitual offender sentences.

Watson also contends that the guidelines scoresheet used in several cases is erroneous for two reasons. First, the primary offense was one for which Watson received a habitual offender sentence. Second, the scoresheet included points for offenses on which Watson was sentenced as a habitual offender. He is correct. See Ricardo v. State, 608 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (error to include habitualized offense as either the primary offense at conviction or as an additional offense at conviction). Therefore, we reverse the guidelines sentences and remand for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet.

Cases involving guidelines sentences: Circuit court case numbers CF92-05073, CF92-05074, CF92-05075, CF92-05076, CF92-05079, CF92-05080, CF92-05081, CF92-05614, CF92-05615, CF92-05616, CF92-05617 and CF92-05618. Note that CF92-05614 was not appealed.

Cases involving habitual offender sentences: Circuit court case numbers CF92-04650 and CF92-05231.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.

RYDER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.


Summaries of

Watson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 7, 1995
658 So. 2d 118 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Case details for

Watson v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIE WATSON, III, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Aug 7, 1995

Citations

658 So. 2d 118 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

Perez v. State

This was error. See Watson v. State, 658 So.2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995);Ricardo v. State, 608 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d…

Joyce v. State

We reverse his guidelines sentences and remand for resentencing under a corrected scoresheet. See Watson v.…