Speights v. StateSpeights v. State
We affirm appellant‘s convictions, finding the two points raised by appellant alleging error in regard to his trial to be without merit. We revеrse and remand, however, for correction of appellant‘s sentences
Appellant was sentenced to ten years for aggravated assault and three life terms for three counts of sexual battery with great forcе. The trial judge ordered all sentences to run consecutively. The recommended guidelines sentence was life imprisonment. The state argued, inter alia, that the consecutive life sentences plus the ten-year sentence did not exceed the recommended sentence of life since the actual total sentencе to be served could be no more than life. We stayed this appeal pending thе determination of that issue by our supreme court. That issue has now been decided in the case of Rease v. State, 493 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1986), where it was held, contrary to the position advanced by the statе, that consecutive sentences in addition to a life sentence exceеd a recommended guidelines sentence of life in prison.
We next look to seе if the trial judge stated adequate reasons for departure. The only reasons fоr departure are found in a notation on the sentencing guidelines scoresheеt. While we have not specifically addressed the adequacy of such notatiоns before (Hall v. State, 478 So.2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)), we take the opportunity to do so now.
Our colleagues on the Third and Fifth District Courts of Appeal have held that written notations by the judge on the scoresheet do not suffice as a written order. Watson v. State, 492 So.2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Bauza v. State, 491 So.2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Bouthner v. State, 489 So.2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). But cf. Corum v. State, 484 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Under “reasons for departure” the trial judge noted “1. Defendant is an hаbitual felon” and “2. The amount of force and violence used against the victim.” While this court has held that a proper adjudication of a defendant as a habitual felon is an adequate reason for departure (Ferguson v. State, 481 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); contra Vicknair v. State, 483 So.2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)), it appears that the trial judgе in this case did not properly adjudicate appellant as a habitual felon. On each sentencing form for the four offenses of which appellant was convicted there appears under “Special Provisions” a notation to be made if appellant was being adjudicated a habitual felon. None of the sentеncing documents include that notation as having been made.
Finally, in regard to the deрarture reason relating to the amount of force and violence used against the victim, the sexual battery charges of which appellant was convicted wеre each sexual battery with great force as specified in
We, therefore, affirm appellant‘s convictions but remand for resentencing within
GRIMES, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.