STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Gary MATTHEWS, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Florida.
*480 Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL and Celia Terenzio, Assistant Attorney General, Bureau Chief and Jeanine M. Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Petitioner.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender and Marcy K. Allen, Assistant Public Defender, Fifthteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.
LEWIS, J.
We have for review the decision in Matthews v. State,
*481 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 14, 1990, Gary Matthews, the respondent, was charged in case number 90-1156 with battery on a law enforcement officer, escape, resisting a merchant without violence, petty theft, and two counts of resisting an officer with violence. Matthews entered a plea of nolo contendere to battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence, and thе escape charge.[1] On September 17, 1990, Matthews was sentenced to serve two concurrent prison terms of five years each as a habitual felony offender with 134 days credit for time served for the charges of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence, and was further sentenced to a consecutive five-year prison term for the escape charge pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. On October 25, 1990, the court amended Matthews' sentence for the escape charge and ordered him to instead serve five years of probation consecutive to the prison sentences for the other two charges. Matthews served his habitual offender prison sentences and subsequently was released on probation.
In 1994, while serving the probation portion of his 1990 sentence for the escape charge, Matthews was arrested and charged in case number 94-1592 with sexual battery with slight force and false imprisonment. On February 28, 1995, Matthews submitted a petition to the court to enter an admission to violating his probation on the escape charge. On March 23, 1995, the court revoked Matthews' probation for the escape charge in the 1990 case and sentenced him to serve four and one-half years in prison with credit for the 355 days he had served while awaiting sentencing. Matthews' prison term for the escape charge in case number 90-5611 was completed on May 29, 1996.
In case number 94-1592, a jury found Mаtthews guilty of sexual battery and false imprisonment. See Matthews v. State,
On January 29, 1997, Matthews' convictions for sexual battery and false imprisonment *482 in case number 94-1592 were reversed on appeal by the Fourth District. See Matthews,
On June 9, 1998, Matthews' sentence in case number 94-1592 was amended due to a scrivener's error. The probationary period was moved from the attempted sexual battery charge to the false imprisonment charge to reflect the oral pronouncement at the August 26, 1997, sentencing proceeding. Pursuant to the amended sentence, Matthews received a five-year prison sentence with credit for 248 days, plus all DOC (Department of Corrections) time and any and all unforfeited gain time for attempted sexual battery, and for the false imprisonment charge he received a consecutive term of one year and one day in prison followed by three years and 364 days of probation with credit for 248 days, plus all DOC time and any and all unforfeited gain time. Again, as the court did not direct that the sentence in case number 94-1592 was to run concurrent with the sentence in case number 90-5611, the sentence was structured to run consecutively pursuant to section 921.16(1) of the Florida Statutes (1998).
Matthews' time served in custody for attempted sexual battery in case number 94-1592 was calculated beginning May 29, 1996.[4] Matthews served his prison term for attempted sexual battery, and on March 9, 1999, was released from prison. Matthews began serving the probationary term for the false imprisonment conviction upon his release.[5] On March 15, 2001, Matthews violated his probation for the false imprisonment charge. On October 4, 2001, Matthews was sentenced to a term of sixty months in prison for violation of probation on the false imprisonment charge.
On July 12, 2001, Matthews filed a Motion to Correct Sentencing Error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 in case number 90-1156.[6] In his *483 motion, Matthews asserted that he should have been granted credit pursuant to Tripp v. State,
On appeal, the Fourth District examined this Court's decision in Tripp, and referred to Palmer v. State,
MOOTNESS
Matthews asserts that he was released from the Department of Corrections on October 1, 2003, without receiving any additional credit as a result of the Fourth District's decision. Matthews contends that the question of whether he was entitled to additional credit is moot.
The Fourth District below certified conflict with the Second District's decision in Duncan v. State,
TRIPP AND ITS PROGENY
In Tripp v. State,
IF A TRIAL COURT IMPOSES A TERM OF PROBATION ON ONE OFFENSE CONSECUTIVE TO A SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION ON ANOTHER OFFENSE, CAN JAIL CREDIT FROM THE FIRST OFFENSE BE DENIED ON A SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER A REVOCATION OF PROBATION ON THE SECOND OFFENSE?
Id. at 941. In Tripp, the defendant pled guilty to two felony charges, specifically burglary and grand theft. See id. Pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, Tripp was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for the burglary charge followed by a consecutive term of four years' probation for the grand theft charge. See id. After serving his prison time, Tripp was released on probation. See id. Subsequently, Tripp violated his probation and his probation was revoked. See id. The trial judge then sentenced Tripp to four and one-half years' incarceration on the grand theft charge, but credited four years for time previously served on the burglary charge. See id. The district court reversed Tripp's award of credit for time served. See id.
On rеview, this Court agreed with the trial court that Tripp was entitled to the award of credit for time served, and determined that the sentencing method sanctioned by the district court was inconsistent with the intent of the sentencing guidelines. See id. at 942. Central to our decision in Tripp was adherence to the intent behind the sentencing guidelines. We observed that the purpose of the sentencing guidelines is
"to establish a uniform set of standards to guide the sentencing judge in the sentence decision-making process" so as to eliminate unwarranted variation in sentencing. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(b). One guidelines scoresheet must be utilized for all offenses pending before the court for sentencing. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(1). A sentence must be imposed for each separate offense, but the total sentence cannot exceed the permitted range of the applicable guidelines scoresheet unless a written reason is given. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(12). Sentences imposed after revocation of probation must be within the recommended guidelines range and a one-cell bump. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(14).
Id. We noted that when Tripp was originally sentenced, the maximum jail time he could have received for the two counts within the permitted range of the sentencing guidelines was a total of four and one-half years. See id. Upon violation of probation, Tripp's maximum incarcerative sentence would have been five and one-half years, less credit for time served. See id. This Court recognized that unless Tripp *485 was given credit for time served, upon violation of probation, his total incarcerative sentence for the two crimes would have been eight and one-half years, three years more than was permitted by the original guidelines sentence. See id.
Our primary concern for not granting credit for time served on the original sentence of imprisonment was that "trial judges can easily circumvent the guidelines." Id. We sought to avoid the danger of the situation under the sentencing guidelines where trial judges can impose
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 incarсerative period will exceed the range contemplated by the guidelines.
Id. We reasoned that both offenses were factors that were weighed in the original sentence under the sentencing guidelines 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. The Tripp rationale focused on the interrelatedness of the sentences computed on a single scoresheet and how the incarcerative period, even after violation of probation, could not exceed the range contemplated by the guidelines at the original sentencing.
One year after Tripp was decided, this Court addressed whether Tripp applied to the factual scenario presented in Cook v. State,
On review, we reversed the decision of the district court, and held that pursuant to Tripp, Cook should have been granted credit for the four and one-half years he served for the 1990 offenses when he was resentenced in 1991 for violating his probation on the 1989 offenses a second time. See id. We determined that at Cook's 1990 sentencing he was sentenced to the prison terms for the 1990 offenses to be followed by probation for the 1989 offenses on the same scoresheet and, therefore, that Cook's total sentence at the 1991 sentencing could not have exceeded the permitted range of his 1990 scoresheet plus a two-cell increase without a written reason. See id. Abiding by our rationale in Tripp, we emphasized, in holding Cook was entitled to credit, the interrelatedness of sentences *486 computed on a single scoresheet under the sentencing guidelines. See id. at 437-38.
In Hodgdon v. State,
On review, we approved the sentence and held that "a defendant who violates probation on multiple counts imposed conseсutive to a prison term is entitled to credit for the time served on the prison term as to the entire sentence imposed on the probation violation, not against each individual count on which probation was violated." Id. at 963. Significantly, this Court further provided that its "holding in Tripp was intended to prevent the circumvention of the guidelines by treating sentences computed on one scoresheet as an interrelated unit. Tripp was never intended to provide a sentencing boon or windfall to defendants upon violations of probation." Id.
Finally, we addressed Tripp in State v. Witherspoon,
When a defendant is originally sentenced consecutively on a single scoresheet, does the holding in Tripp v. State,622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993), require the granting of crеdit for time served in prison where the defendant's newly imposed sentence upon revocation of probation does not exceed the maximum permitted by the sentencing guidelines?
Id. at 872. In Witherspoon, we held that the certified question had been answered in the affirmative in Hodgdon, and further held that Tripp should be applied notwithstanding the fact that the newly imposed sentence is within the sentencing guidelines. See Witherspoon,
DUNCAN v. STATE
The Fourth District in the instant action certified conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Duncan v. State,
On appeal, Duncan contended that Tripp entitled him to credit for the time he served pursuant to the guidelines sentence to be applied to his habitual offender sentence imposed upon resentencing. The Second District disagreed. In recognizing the holding in Tripp, the Second District focused on this Court's reasoning in Tripp that awarding credit is necessary to preserve the intent of the sentencing guidelines. See id. The Second District wrote:
Duncan's sentence in this case, however, is a habitual offender sentence to which the guidelines do not apply. Consequently, Duncan is not entitled to credit for the time he served pursuant to the guidelines sentence.
The danger sought to be avoided by Tripp the imposition of prison time in excess of that mandated by the guidelines in circumstances where probation on one or more counts follows prison time on one or more others simply does not inhere in the context of a habitual offender sentence for which the guidelines do not apply.
Id. Since the Second District did not apply Tripp to Duncan's habitual offender sentence, it is in conflict with the decision in Matthews, where the Fourth District expressly held that Tripp was applicable to habitual offender sentences.
ANALYSIS
As noted above, the Fourth District in the instant action certified conflict with the Second District's decision in Duncan v. State,
We recently addressed Tripp in the context of sentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code ("CPC"). See Moore v. State,
On review, we agreed with the trial court that Tripp is not applicable to sentencing under the CPC. See Moore,
The danger sought to be avoided in Tripp the imposition of prison time in excess of that mandated by the sentencing guidelines in circumstances where probation on one or more counts follows prison time on one or more counts remains at the forefront of our analysis in determining whether Tripp credit should be applied to habitual offender sentences. At the outset, it must be noted that neither Tripp nor its progeny involved the habitual offender statute at issue in the instant action.
Under the sentencing guidelines, a narrow range of permissible sentences is determined through a strict mathematical formula. See Nettles v. State,
The Legislature expressed that the primary purpose of the habitual felony offender statute is to incarcerate habitual offenders for extended terms. See § 775.0841, Fla. Stat. (1989). We have recognized that by enacting sections 775.084 and 775.0841 of the Florida Statutes "the legislature intended to provide for the incarceration of repeat felony offenders for longer periods of time.... [T]his is accomplished by enlargement of the maximum sentences that can be imposed when a defendant is found to be an habitual felon or an hаbitual violent felon." Daniels v. State,
Sentencing under the habitual offender statute is permissive, not mandatory. See State v. Hudson,
Prior to 1988, when section 775.084 of the Florida Statutes was amended, habitual felony offender sentences were subject to the limitations of the sentencing guidelines. See State v. Callaway,
In determining whether Tripp credit should apply to habitual offender sentences, the intent and purpose underlying the habitual offender statute and the sentencing guidelines are of paramount importance. We have recognized that Tripp was grounded upon "a desire to effectuate the intent underlying the sentencing guidelines." Hodgdon,
The goal of the sentencing guidelines scoring system to achieve control over the total prison term for all guidelines sentences scored on the same scoresheet and imposed at the same sentencing proceeding was attained in Tripp and its progeny, which all involved sentences imposed pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. In those decisions, we addressed concerns unique to the sentencing guidelines. Offenses were required to be treated as interrelated under the sentencing guidelines until all sentences and probationary terms were satisfied because the offenses scored together at the original sentencing proceeding created the initial sentencing range the minimum and maximum sentence.
By contrast, under the habitual offender statute, the offenses at the original sentencing proceeding are not factors considered together to establish a sentencing range. Instead, the habitual offender statute prescribes life in prison as a specific sentence for first-degree felonies, and a maximum permissible sentence for second- and third-degree felonies. See § 775.084(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).[9] This is consistent with the primary purpose of the habitual felony offender sentence, which was intended to provide the availability of increased penalties above guidelines sentences. When a defendant is sentenced as a habitual offender for some counts and under the sentencing guidelines for other counts, the habitual offender sentences are not factored into the overall sentencing *491 guidelines range. Therefore, pursuant to the express language of the habitual offender statute that a "sentence imposed under [the habitual offender statute] shall not be subject to the provisions of s. 921.001 [the sentencing guidelines]," § 775.084(4)(e), Flа. Stat. (1989), and our previous determination that the habitual offender statute contradicts the principles of the sentencing guidelines, we conclude that Tripp credit, which we granted in the context of the sentencing guidelines to effectuate the intent underlying the guidelines, does not apply to habitual offender sentences.
In the instant action, notwithstanding the use of a single scoresheet, the offenses sentenced pursuant to the habitual offender statute at the original sentencing were not factored into the computation of Matthews' guidelines sentence for the escape charge. Therefore, even after revocation of probation, the prison time Matthews served as a habitual offender should not have been factored into, or credited to, the prison time he had to serve pursuant to the sentencing guidelines upon revocation of probation. As discussed above, in Tripp, our concern, in the context of the sentencing guidelines, was to ensure that trial courts sentenced defendants within the originally established sentencing guidelines range even after a violation of probation. This concern is not present in sentencing under either the CPC, as we held in Moore, or under the habitual offender statute, as in the instant action, because notwithstanding that a single scoresheet was used, in neither context are separate offenses treated as an interrelated unit at the original sentencing proceeding, and thus the separate offenses should not be considered interrelated upon revocation of probation.
Here, Matthews' three 1990 sentences imposed on the battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence, and the escape charges were never required to collectively fall within an overall guidelines range because two of the charges were habitual offender sentences. Therefore, Matthews' escape charge was the only offense considered under the sentencing guidelines originally when the trial court established a sentencing guidelines range. Escape is a second-degree felony. See § 944.40, Fla. Stat. (1989). At the time of Matthews' sentencing, the maximum sentence authоrized by law for such an offense was fifteen years. See § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (1989). Significantly, the guidelines prison sentence of four and one-half years in prison that Matthews received for the escape charge after violating his five-year guidelines probation sentence did not exceed the total guidelines sentence permissible.[10] There is no justification to treat separate offenses as an interrelated unit upon revocation of probation in the instant action when the separate offenses were not treated as an interrelated unit at the original sentencing because the habitual offender sentences were not factored into the computation of the guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we hоld that Tripp credit is not applicable to habitual offender sentences. We therefore quash the Fourth District's decision in Matthews, and approve the Second District's decision in Duncan.
It is so ordered.
*492 PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
NOTES
Notes
[1] The record on appeal indicates that the State elected not to prosecute the resisting a merchant without violence charge, the petty theft charge, and one count of resisting an officer with violence.
[2] Section 921.16(1) of the Florida Statutes (1995) provides:
A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in consolidated indictments, informations, or affidavits shall serve the sentences of imprisonment concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served consecutivеly. Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently.
(Emphasis added.)
[3] The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court's failure to certify that Matthews waived his presence during bench conferences concerning jury selection violated his right to be present at all critical stages of his trial and required reversal of his convictions and remanded for a new trial. See Matthews,
[4] May 29, 1996, was the date Matthews completed his sentence for the escape charge in the 1990 case.
[5] At the time of his release, Matthews had served 1104 days (from May 29, 1996, to March 9, 1999) in custody for attempted sexual battery in сase number 94-1592. However, the record indicates that Matthews did not serve the year and a day consecutive prison sentence for false imprisonment because he was inadvertently released when the sentence for attempted sexual battery was completed. The Department of Corrections erred by structuring the sentence for false imprisonment to run concurrently, instead of consecutively, with the sentence for attempted sexual battery.
[6] This Court has held that "rule 3.800(a) vests trial courts with the broad authority to correct an illegal sentence without imposing a time limitation on the ability of defendants to seek relief." Carter v. State,
[7] The Second District's opinion does not reveal the details of Duncan's second guidelines sentence.
[8] Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), provides, in pertinent part:
(1) As used in this act:
(a) "Habitual felony offender" means a defendant for whom the court may impose an extended term of imprisonment, as provided in this section, if it finds that:
1. The defendant has previously been convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified offenses;
2. The felony for which the defendant is to be sentenced was committed within 5 years of the date of the conviction of the last prior felony or other qualified offense of which he was convicted, or within 5 years of the defendant's release, on parole or otherwise, from a prison sentence or other commitment imposed as a result of a prior conviction for a felony or other qualified offense, whichever is later;
3. The defendant has not received a pardon for any felony or other qualified offense that is necessary for the operation of this section; and
4. A conviction of a felony оr other qualified offense necessary to the operation of this section has not been set aside in any post-conviction proceeding.
[9] Section 775.084(4)(a) of the Florida Statutes (1989), provides:
The court . . . shall sentence the habitual felony offender as follows:
1. In the case of a felony of the first degree, for life.
2. In the case of a felony of the second degree, for a term of years not exceeding 30.
3. In the case of a felony of the third degree, for a term of years not exceeding 10.
[10] Under the law at the time in 1990, had the trial court not sentenced Matthews for the escape charge under the sentencing guidelines, the court could have imposed a maximum thirty-year sentence pursuant to the habitual offender statute. See § 775.084(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989) (providing that in the case of a felony of the second degree, escape, a habitual felony offender may be sentenced for a term not exceeding thirty years).