TERRY L. RITTS, 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.
Conviction for strong-arm robbery affirmed, but sentence reversed because trial court improperly included victim injury points in sentencing guidelines calculation, though victim injury may be considered as a departure reason.
Robbery under Florida Statutes section 812.13 does not include victim injury as an essential element, so victim injury points cannot be included in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
[1] Victim injury points cannot be included in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet for robbery convictions because victim injury is not an essential element of the robbery o…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the crime of robbery, defined in section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1985), does not include victim injury as an essential element”
Court explaining the legal basis for finding sentencing error
Terry Ritts snatched a purse from an elderly shopper in a shopping mall parking lot and was convicted of strong-arm robbery.…
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 Victim Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Chief Judge.
Terry Ritts was convicted of strong-arm robbery after snatching a purse from an elderly shopper in a shopping mall parking lot. We find no error in appellant’s conviction. We do find, however, that a sentencing error was committed by including points for victim injury, resulting in an improper presumptive guidelines range. Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.
This court has held that the crime of robbery, defined in section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1985), does not include victim injury as an essential element. Parker v. State, 478 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hendry v. State, 460 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Therefore, it was error to include twenty-one victim injury points on appellant’s scoresheet. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(7). This error was not harmless since it produced a higher presumptive range. We remand so the trial court may resentence Ritts utilizing the correct guidelines range. While we hold that points for victim injury should not have been included on the scoresheet, we note that victim injury may properly be used as a reason to depart from the guidelines. See Parker at 825 (citing Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985)).
Conviction affirmed; sentence reversed and remanded.
SCHEB and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1989)…prived them of liberty or placed them in danger. E.g., Hargrove v. Town of Cocoa Beach, 96 So. 2d 130 (Fla.1957) (liability when inmate died of smoke inhalation in negligently attended jail); Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Kropff 491 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (liability for injury caused by officer’s negligence during roadside stop); Walston v. Florida Highway Patrol, 429 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (liability for injury caused by officer’s negligence during roadside stop); White v…1 / 2
-
Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1988)…, since the first-degree murder conviction, a capital felony, cannot be scored as an offense at conviction, see McPhaul v. State, 496 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and victim injury is not an element of attempted armed robbery, see Ritts v. State, 491 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), points for victim injury were improperly scored. However, it is clear from the record that regardless of the presumptive sentence under the guidelines, the trial court would have departed to “the maximum penalty provided by law.”…
-
Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2009)…s deputy assured a 911 caller that he would conduct a safety check (and later claimed that he did conduct such a check) when, in fact, he never responded to the scene. See id. at 1024 (relying upon Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Kropff, 491 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and Padgett v. Sch. Bd. of Escambia County, 395 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)). As we explained long ago in Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731, 734 (Fla.1960), and subsequently reaffirmed following the 1980 amendments…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Bernie I. Parker v. State, 478 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Hendry v. State, 460 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)