WILLIAM HOOD, 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 a defendant cannot be deemed to have waived an objection to sentencing scoresheet calculations based on a law that changed after sentencing.
William Hood pleaded guilty to lewd acts upon a child and was sentenced. He appealed the scoring of victim injury points, arguing no evidence of physi…
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 Victim Injury Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Hood appeals from the sentences imposed following his guilty pleas to four counts of lewd, lascivious, or indecent acts upon a child.1 Hood argues that the trial court erred by scoring 80 victim injury points (20 points times 4 counts) for “slight or contact but no penetration” because there was no evidence the victim suffered physical trauma.
The State acknowledges that pursuant to Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930, 932 (Fla.1992), which was decided after Hood was sentenced, the trial court should not have scored victim injury points for those sentences in the absence of evidence of physical trauma. However, the State contends that any objection to the scoresheet is waived because Hood made no objection at the time of sentencing. We reject this contention because Hood was sentenced in accordance with the then existing law. See Moore v. State, 469 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), quashed on other grounds, 489 So. 2d 1130 (Fla.1986). Therefore, Hood had no basis for an objection at that time. Hood cannot be required to foresee changes in the law occurring while his appeal was pending.
Accordingly, Hood’s 12 year concurrent sentences for lewd and lascivious conduct are reversed and remanded for resentencing. At the resentencing hearing, the State shall be allowed to offer proof of physical trauma to the victim. Furthermore, because the record indicates that the trial judge did not intend to impose a departure sentence, the trial judge is not required to impose a guidelines sentence on remand. State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989); Wood v. State, 593 So. 2d 557, 557-58 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Convictions AFFIRMED; Sentences REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and COBB and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . § 800.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). Hood also pled guilty to three counts of capital sexual battery, but concedes on appeal that the sentences for these counts were proper.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Montague, 682 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1996)…jection and rejected the Karchesky claim. Our review in Pinacle was based upon conflict between the district court’s holding and the holdings in Linkous v. State, 618 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 626 So. 2d 208 (1993), and Hood v. State, 603 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Linkous and Hood held that a contemporaneous objection is not necessary to preserve a Karchesky error for appellate review. However, in Pinacle, we found defense counsel’s objection sufficient to preserve the Karchesky issue, an…
-
Perryman v. State, 608 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ssessment of points for victim injury. In these circumstances, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review. See Dailey v. State, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1986). We acknowledge that our application of Dailey is inconsistent with Hood v. State, 603 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also, Morris v. State, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). But neither Hood nor Morris discusses Dailey, which, like the present case, involved an issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support an assess [*529] ment o…
-
Royce Glenn Harper v. State, 632 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…08 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Wallen v. State, 606 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Beasley v. State, 605 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review denied, 614 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1993); Fowler v. State, 605 So .2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Hood v. State, 603 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Goodwin v. State, 600 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Sanchez v. State, 600 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Jones v. State, 597 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 604 So. 2d 487 (Fla.1992); Jory v. State, 596 So. 2d 1126…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989)
- Moore v. State, 469 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Wood v. State, 593 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- State v. Moore, 489 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1986)
- Boehmer v. State, 489 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1986)