Caracciolo v. StateCaracciolo v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Letts
This is one of three separate appeals pending before this court involving the same criminal defendant. In that these appeals have not been consolidated, eaсh one will be treated by separate opinion. For refеrence, the companion cases are 89-2734 and 90-0252.
In the instant appeal, appellant is challenging the denial оf his 3.800(a) motion in the trial court. Appellant’s charges arosе out of a series of home invasion robberies, which culminatеd in four separate informa-tions being filed in the trial court. Thesе informations each contained numerous counts, including such сharges as armed kidnapping and armed burglary.
On October 8, 1986, and Jаnuary 26, 1987, appellant appeared before the trial court, together with his attorney, Mark Finkelstein, the assistant state attorney, Joe Lazarus, Esq., and Special Agent Steve Emerson of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, all of whom had participated in the proposed plea agreement. Appellant pled guilty to eleven charges in three of the informations, and the state thereupon nol prossеd the remaining counts as well as case No. 86-14110, which the state nol prossed in its entirety.
Of the eleven counts to which defendant pled, ten were life felonies. There was discussion of apрellant’s guideline range being between twenty-seven and forty years, and several of the counts requiring a three-year minimum mandatоry sentence. The eleventh count, being a second-degrеe felony, the sentence was limited to fifteen years by statute. The only issue which bears any consideration by this court is whether thе trial court actually had the guidelines scoresheet physically before it at the time of final sentencing on January 26, 1987. In the transcript, at page 3, the prosecutor indicates that the sheet had been provided to the defense attorney and the court. There is considerable discussion amongst the statе attorney, the defense attorney and the court, all without оbjection, to the effect that the defendant scored а total of 497 points, yielding a guideline range of twenty-seven to fоrty years. Finally, there is in the record on appeal a рurported guidelines scoresheet with reference to the same case numbers, indicating the same point total and guidеline ’range. However, this sheet does not contain any notation as to the sentence imposed, nor any signatures of thе judge, the state attorney, the defense counsel or the score-sheet preparer. The only date that apрears on said sheet, other than appellant’s date of birth, is our clerk’s date stamp indicating date of filing of June 22, 1989. This latter dаte comports with the date of filing of appellant’s prо se notice of appeal.
Out of an abundance оf caution, we remand this matter to the trial court to clarify, if it can, whether the guidelines score-sheet referred to was рhysically present before the judge and the court on the date of sentencing, to wit, January 26, 1987.
LETTS, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.