MARK ANTHONY ARQUILLA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that North Carolina convictions, analogous to Florida misdemeanors, were improperly scored as felonies for sentencing purposes.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and sentenced based on prior North Carolina convictions scored as felonies. Appellant argued these North Carolina …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prior Convictions Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
For his conviction of burglary the trial court sentenced appellant to three years’ incarceration. Appellant contends this was error in that the trial judge scored two North Carolina convictions as felonies when, in fact, they were classified as misdemeanors in North Carolina.
Rule 3.701(d)(5)(a), provides in part:
a) “Prior record” refers to any past criminal conduct on the part of the offender, resulting in conviction, disposed of prior to the commission of the instant offense. Prior record includes all prior Florida, Federal, out-of-state, military, and foreign convictions.
2) When scoring federal, foreign, military, or out-of-state convictions, assign the score for the analogous or parallel Florida Statute.
3) When unable to determine whether an offense at conviction is a felony or misdemeanor, the offense should be scored as a misdemeanor. Where the degree of the felony is ambiguous or impossible to determine, score the offense as a third-degree felony.
(emphasis added).
An examination of the record evidence of the North Carolina statutes under which appellant was convicted demonstrates that those crimes are analagous or parallel to the Florida statute on trespass, which is a misdemeanor. Therefore, section 3.701(d)(5)(a) would mandate that those crimes be scored as misdemeanors. Furthermore, at the very least, there is some doubt about whether the North Carolina crimes are felonies or misdemeanors and thus they should have been scored as misdemeanors per subsection (3) of the rule.
Accordingly, the sentence is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to recalculate the appropriate sentence.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.
DOWNEY, HERSEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forehand v. State, 524 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…CA 1987); Armontrout v. State, 503 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Noland v. State, 489 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Rodriguez v. State, 472 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Arquilla v. State, 464 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). But see Weakland v. State, 520 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Doner v. State, 515 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We followed such an analysis in Noland v. State. In Noland, the issue involved the scoring of two prior Indiana c…