KENNETH COCHRAN, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Aleño Santana Madrigal v. State, 683 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
  …ment multiplier for violation of section 775.0823(10)). Accordingly, it was error to enhance appellant’s points by the 1.5 multiplier and appellant is entitled to be resentenced upon a properly calculated guidelines scoresheet. See Cochran v. State, 592 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Erickson v. State, 565 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 286 (Fla.1991); Dawson v. State, 532 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Erroneously using the 1.5 multiplier placed appellant in a sentencing range of 5…
• Thomas v. State, 659 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
  …rroneous. Although we recognize that these errors will not necessarily result in a different sentence, we are not willing to assume that a change in appellant’s score will not affect the court’s discretion in imposing his sentence. Cochran v. State, 592 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). DELL and KLEIN, JJ., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.…
• Bendel v. State, 613 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
  …y the supreme court in Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.1991). The state argues that recalculating the guidelines score after removing the multiplier may not change the result, and thus we should affirm as harmless error. In Cochran v. State, 592 So. 2d 784 (Fla, 4th DCA 1992), however, we rejected the same argument in identical circumstances. We thus reverse and remand for resentencing, because “it cannot be assumed here that the change in score might not impact the exercise of the court’s discretion.…

Authorities Cited

• Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1991)
• Carter v. State, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1991)