ROY NATVIK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
We affirm the lower court. However, in accordance with Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), we certify to the supreme court the following question:
DO FLORIDA’S UNIFORM SENTENCING GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT LEGAL CONSTRAINT POINTS BE ASSESSED FOR EACH OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE UNDER LEGAL CONSTRAINT?
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents with opinion.
COWART, Judge,
dissenting.
Factor IV on the scoresheet refers to the legal status of the defendant at the time of the commission of any offense (primary or additional) before the court for sentencing. This status is binary, without steps or degrees — at the relevant time the defendant was either under “no restrictions” or he was under “legal constraint.” This factor scores, or does not score, that status and was not intended to score the number of incidents that may have combined to create the one status. Any one of the circumstances cataloged in Rule 3.701 d.6. is sufficient to create the status of being under legal constraint.
Therefore the number of points assigned for the status of being under legal constraint should not be multiplied by the number of incidents creating the one status. I dissent for these and other reasons given in the dissent to Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Noting that the Fourth District, in Carter v. State, 571 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), following Flowers ruled in favor of a multiplier, the Second District has concluded that a multiplier may not be used with legal constraint to arrive at a recommended guidelines sentence. See Lewis v. State, 574 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Scott v. State, 574 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); and Worley v. State, 573 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Special note should be taken of Judge Altenbernd’s illustration in Scott v. State of the tremendous skewing effect of applying a multiplier to the legal status factor.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doughty v. State, 578 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…COWART, Judge, dissenting. See the dissents in Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Znajmiecki v. State, 569 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. granted, Supreme Court, 577 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Natvik v. State, 574 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Adams v. State, 577 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). See also, contrary to the majority decision herein, Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lewis v. State, 574 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Worley v. State, 57…
-
Ficichy v. State, 578 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…COWART, Judge, dissenting. See the dissents in Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Znajmiecki v. State, 569 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. granted, 577 So. 2d 1331 (Table) (Fla.1991); Natvik v. State, 574 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); and Adams v. State, 577 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). See also, contrary to the majority decision herein, Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lewis v. State, 574 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Worley v. State…
-
Kelly v. State, 578 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…COWART, Judge, dissenting. See the dissents in Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Znajmiecki v. State, 569 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. granted, 577 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1991); Natvik v. State, 574 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); and Adams v. State, 577 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). See also, contrary to the majority decision herein, Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lewis v. State, 574 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Worley v. State…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Lewis v. State, 574 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Scott v. State, 574 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Fla. Perfections, Inc. v. J & D Fin. Corp., 571 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Carter v. State, 571 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Worley v. State, 573 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)