CHARLES RANDALL HORNE, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by imposing adult sanctions without considering the statutory criteria and by improperly using a legal constraint multiplier.
A juvenile was prosecuted as an adult and convicted of robbery with a firearm and attempted robbery with a firearm. The trial court imposed concurrent…
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 Adult Sanctions For Juveniles cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Appellant, a juvenile, was prosecuted as an adult and convicted of robbery with a firearm and attempted robbery with a firearm. The trial court imposed concurrent split sentences of eight years incarceration followed by five years probation. The in-carcerative portion fell within the guidelines.
Appellant contends that the trial court violated his sentencing rights as a juvenile by imposing adult sanctions without considering the statutory criteria in section 39.-059(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). We agree.
Section 39.059(7)(c) lists six criteria for consideration by the court before imposing adult sanctions. Section 39.059(7)(d) states that any decision to impose adult sanctions shall be in writing and in conformity with each of the criteria. The court must render a specific finding of fact and state the reasons for imposing adult sanctions. See Surrency v. State, 585 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Taylor v. State, 573 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Appellant’s second issue concerns the use of a legal constraint multiplier. The supreme court has held that legal status points may be scored only once. See Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1991). This court has held that use of a legal constraint multiplier is not harmless merely because a defendant’s sentence falls within the permitted range. See Terry v. State, 588 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Conviction AFFIRMED; sentences REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing.
COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGREEVEY v. State, 717 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…tence, we have held that a trial judge should have a correct scoresheet before deciding whether to apply the permitted range and thus such errors in scoring are not harmless. See Goodwin v. State, 600 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Horne v. State, 593 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Lawrence v. State, 590 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Terry v. State, 588 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment but quash the sentence and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing on the issue of slight…
-
Patterson v. State, 641 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ntence in the recommended range rather than the permitted range, as evidenced by the original sentence imposed. Thus, in fairness to Patterson, the judge should be given a chance to resentence him, pursuant to a corrected scoresheet. Horne v. State, 593 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Scott. Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of guilt, vacate the sentence, and remand with directions to resentence Patterson pursuant to a corrected scoresheet. AFFIRMED in part; Sentence VACATED; REMANDED to Resentence.…
-
Ervin James Barrett v. State, 608 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…nd for resentencing. The court should correct the scoresheet by removing the multiple legal constraint points prior to resentencing. See Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.1991); Terry v. State, 588 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Horne v. State, 593 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED. SHARP, W., and DIAMANTIS, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1991)
- Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Taylor v. State, 573 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- NME Hosps., Inc. v. Azzariti, 573 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Surrency v. State, 585 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Silver Pines P'rs Ltd. v. The Resolution Tr. Corp., 588 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Terry v. State, 588 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)