RANDY BOYD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; RUSSELL E. DOUGHTY, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; DARRYL J. HOWARTH, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; ROY NATVIK, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; DOUGLAS W. ZOZAK, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1991-11-07
Nos. 77347, 77883, 77884, 77581 and 77,587
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
587 So. 2d 1311 Florida Supreme Court (1991)

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.


Holding

Florida's Uniform Sentencing Guidelines do not require legal constraint points for each offense committed while under legal constraint.


Facts & Procedural History

The Fifth District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding the assessment of legal constraint points under Florida's Uniform Sentencing Guideli…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

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:

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).

We answered this question in the negative in Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, we quash the decisions below and remand these consolidated cases for reconsideration consistent with our opinion in 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

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw