WILLIAM JAMES MARSHALEK, 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 affirmed convictions and the denial of a motion to suppress statements, but reversed the sentence because the trial court improperly scored thirty points for legal constraint based on warrants of which the defendant had no notice.
A trial court errs in assessing points for legal constraint on a sentencing guidelines scoresheet when the defendant had no notice of the outstanding warrants.
[1] A trial court errs in assessing points for legal constraint on a sentencing guidelines scoresheet when the defendant had no notice of the outstanding warrants underlying…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted and at sentencing the trial court added thirty points to his guidelines scoresheet based on two outstanding warrants for failu…
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 Legal Constraint Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statements as involuntary and the record contains sufficient evidence to support appellant’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions.
However, the trial court erred when it scored thirty points on appellant’s guidelines scoresheet for his being under legal constraint at the time of the subject offenses. The court based the additional thirty point score upon two outstanding warrants for appellant’s failure to appear on two traffic charges. At the sentencing hearing, appellant introduced copies of county court orders subsequently recalling the warrants because appellant did not receive notice of the hearings. We hold that the trial court should not have assessed appellant with points for being under legal constraint when appellant had no notice of the outstanding warrants. Therefore we reverse the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand this cause with instructions to compute appellant’s guidelines scoresheet without the inclusion of points for legal constraint and to resentenee appellant within the applicable guidelines range.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
LETTS, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.