ERIC PAUL CADENHEAD, 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.
Appellant's sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing because the sentencing guidelines calculation improperly multiplied legal constraint points by the number of felony convictions, contrary to controlling precedent from this court.
A sentencing guidelines calculation that multiplies legal constraint points by the number of felony convictions must be vacated and remanded for resentencing.
[1] Sentencing guidelines calculations that multiply legal constraint points by the number of felony convictions are improper and require vacation and resentencing.
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 intelligenceEric Paul Cadenhead was sentenced under Florida's sentencing guidelines using a calculation method that multiplied points assessed for legal constrain…
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 Sentencing Guidelines Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Chief Judge.
Eric Paul Cadenhead appeals the sentences imposed upon him, based upon a sentencing guidelines point total calculated by multiplying the number of points assessed for legal constraint by the number of his felony convictions. The state agrees that decisions of this court, released after sentencing in this case, require that appellant’s sentence be vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing. See Wilson v. State, 580 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accord Scott v. State, 574 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), jurisdiction accepted, decision pending, State v. Scott, 581 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.1991); Lewis v. State, 574 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Cabrera v. State, 576 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Accordingly, appellant’s sentences are vacated and the cause is remanded for re-sentencing, pursuant to this court’s decision in Wilson and in Sellers. In addition, we certify that our resolution of the issue in this case is in direct conflict with decisions of the fourth and fifth district courts of appeal in Carter v. State, 571 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); and Walker v. State, 546 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
ERVIN and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- 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)
- Wilson v. State, 580 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)