DARRYL J. HOWARTH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scoring Of Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm. Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Walker v. State, 546 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Accord Carter v. State, 571 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Contra Lewis v. State, 574 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
However we certify the following question to the supreme court:
DO FLORIDA’S UNIFORM SENTENCING GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT LEGAL CONSTRAINT POINTS BE ASSESSED FOR EACH OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE UNDER LEGAL CONSTRAINT?
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. COWART, J., dissents with opinion.
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, 573 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Scott v. State, 574 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) and Cabrera v. State, 576 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
See also the supreme court’s consideration of a petition by the Florida Sentencing Guidelines Commission to clarify the committee notes appended to Rule 3.701d.6., wherein the commission states it was never intended to permit the scoring of “legal status points” for each offense committed while the defendant was under legal constraint, regardless of the number of offenses and that such multiple scoring sometimes results in penalties out of proportion to the offense. Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure re: Sentencing Guidelines, 576 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyd v. State, 587 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 1991)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the consolidated cases of Boyd v. State, 572 So. 2d 1032, 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Doughty v. State, 578 So. 2d 65, 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Howarth v. State, 578 So. 2d 66, 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Natvik v. State, 574 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), and Zozak v. State, 576 So. 2d 312, 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified the following question of great public importance…
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Walker v. State, 546 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Lewis v. State, 574 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Louie Anthony Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fernandez v. Efigenia Nancy Fernandez, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Scott v. State, 574 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- FLA. RULES OF CRIM. PROCEDURE RE: SENTENCING GUIDELINES (RULES 3.701 & 3.988), 576 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1991)
- Cabrera v. State, 576 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d 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)