SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
As a result of an incident on May 17, 2010, in which the defendant-appellee struck his wife with a hot iron leaving a permanent burn mark on her leg, he was charged with one count of simple battery and two of aggravated battery. Before trial, however, the defendant entered into a bargain in which he pled to one count of simple battery and one count of aggravated battery in return for a withhold of adjudication and — although the sentencing guidelines for the charges yielded a minimum sentence of 21.15 months in state prison — two years probation. Within two months, however, as found by the trial court in a now-uncontested ruling, Martinez violated his probation in several material respects. Because aggravated battery is a qualifying offense under the Anti-Murder Act, § 948.06(8)(c)3., Fla. Stat. (2009),
On the stated basis that this provision does not require the application of the guidelines
That error was committed below is conclusively established, without more, by section 921.002, Florida Statutes (2009), which provides:
See also § 775.082(8)(d), Fla. Stat. (2009) ("The Criminal Punishment Code applies to all felonies, except capital felonies, committed on or after October 1, 1998. Any revision to the Criminal Punishment Code applies to sentencing for all felonies, except capital felonies, committed on or after the effective date of the revision."); § 921.0024(1)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2009) (section entitled "Criminal Punishment Code; worksheet computations; scoresheets," providing for additional points "[i]f the community sanction violation is committed by a violent felony offender of special concern as defined in s. 948.06" (emphasis added)). This statute, which could not be more categorical, unconditional, or unambiguous, clearly establishes that the code and the guidelines do apply to this case.
Sentence reversed and remanded for resentencing under the guidelines.
(emphasis added). The State thoroughly agreed. Only the trial judge didn't.
Fla. S. Judiciary Comm., CS for SB 146 (2007) Staff Analysis (Feb. 19, 2007) (on file with State Archives of Florida).
Similarly, we are unimpressed with the defense's reliance on its serendipitous discovery on appeal that an earlier draft of section 948.06 contained a specific reference to the code which was omitted in the final version. We need not adopt any general view of the value of legislative history to observe that (a) the reason for the omission was very likely the neutral one of simply eliminating a redundancy; and (b) even taken at its best for purposes of the defense argument the elimination of the clause is no more than a drop in its bucket of argument which is drowned by the torrent of contrary legislative intent upon which we rely. See also Polite v. State, 973 So.2d 1107 (Fla.2007) (stating that fact that section 784.07(2), forbidding battery on a law enforcement officer, does not specifically provide that the defendant have knowledge of the officer's status does not militate against ruling that such knowledge is required, even though similar statutes do contain that language); Cooper v. State, 742 So.2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that section 843.02, forbidding resisting an officer without violence, requires proof of the defendant's knowledge of the officer's status despite statute's silence as to such knowledge).