RALPH RIVERA, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; BRUCE PATRICK, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; LESTER DAVIS, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; MONTGOMERY SCOTT SHIEL, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; MICHAEL GANTT, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; DENNIS DUSSAULT, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; DARREN ISOM, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; DONALD LEE KELLY, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; JOHN ARTHUR FICICHY, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; BOBBY ADAMS, ETC., PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court held that the Uniform Sentencing Guidelines do not require assessment of legal constraint points for each offense committed while under legal constraint, quashing the Fifth District's decisions and remanding for reconsideration in light of Flowers v. State.
Florida's Uniform Sentencing Guidelines do not require that legal constraint points be assessed for each offense committed while under legal constraint.
[1] Florida's Uniform Sentencing Guidelines do not require assessment of legal constraint points for each offense committed while under legal constraint.
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 intelligenceTen defendants appealed sentencing decisions from the Fifth District Court of Appeal, each raising the same certified question regarding application o…
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 Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the consolidated cases of Rivera v. State, 576 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Patrick v. State, 576 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Davis v. State, 576 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Shiel v. State, 576 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Gantt v. State, 576 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Dussault v. State, 578 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Isom v. State, 578 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Kelly v. State, 578 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Ficichy v. State, 578 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), and Adams v. State, 577 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified in each case the same question of great public importance which the court certified in Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055, 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), quashed, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.1991):
DO FLORIDA’S UNIFORM SENTENCING GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT LEGAL CONSTRAINT POINTS BE ASSESSED FOR EACH OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE UNDER LEGAL CONSTRAINT?
We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. Having answered this question in the negative in Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.1991), we quash the decisions below and remand these cases to the district court for reconsideration in light of Flowers.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cary J. Campbell v. State, 588 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ntence. See Gladden. The error which we find in this proceeding arises from our supreme court’s recent decision in Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.1991), most recently applied in Banegas v. State, 586 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1991); Rivera v. State, 586 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1991); State v. Sellers, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1991); Ricks v. State, 586 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1991); Jackson v. State, 586 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1991); Fields v. State, 586 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1991); State v. Worley, 586 So. 2d 338 (Fla.1991); Carter v. St…
-
Bell v. State, 631 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…elony, rather than a life felony); Bray v. State, 586 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (although it did not affect sentence, cause was remanded for correction of scoresheet); Dussault v. State, 578 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA), quashed on other grounds, 586 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1991) (defendant was entitled to have record corrected to rectify erroneous imposition of fifteen years probation for third degree felony, for which the maximum period of incarceration was only five years, despite the imposition of concurrent f…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1991)
- Flowers v. State, 567 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Montgomery Scott Shiel v. State, 576 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Adams v. State, 577 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Patrick v. State, 576 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Dussault v. State, 578 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Davis v. State, 576 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Gantt v. State, 576 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Rivera v. State, 576 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Ficichy v. State, 578 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)