JOE PERRYMAN, 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 an issue regarding the assessment of points for victim injury on a scoresheet is not preserved for appellate review if not objected to in the trial court.
The appellant challenged the points assessed for victim injury on his sentencing scoresheet, arguing that such points should not be assessed for sexua…
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
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant challenges a guidelines sentence imposed under a “Category 2: Sexual Offense” scoresheet, contending that points should not have been assessed for victim injury. In making this argument, the appellant relies on Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla.1992), which emphasizes that victim injury is limited to physical trauma, so that for sexual offenses victim injury should not be scored for intercourse or penetration which does not cause ascertainable physical injury.
Although the appellant now disputes the scoresheet computation, he did not raise such an objection or otherwise preserve the issue below. Instead, the appellant advised the court that the computation was correct, and he expressly agreed to the assessment 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 ment of points for victim injury. In a different context, the supreme. court recently stressed the continuing vitality of Dailey with regard to factual matters which may not be apparent from the record. See Taylor v. State, 601 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1992).
Because the appellant failed to preserve the issue for appeal, we decline to consider his argument on the merits. The challenged sentence is affirmed.
MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Montague, 682 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1996)…PINACLE v. STATE [Pinacle v. State], 654 So. 2d 908 (Fla.1995), OVERRULED LINKOUS v. STATE [Linkous v. State], 618 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2D DCA), REVIEW DENIED, 626 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1993), AND ADOPTED THE HOLDING OF PERRYMAN v. STATE [Perryman v. State], 608 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1ST DCA 1992), REVIEW DENIED, 621 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1993), SO THAT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE A KARCHESKY SENTENCING ERROR FOR APPELLATE REVIEW A CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION MUST BE MADE AT TIME OF SENTENCING TO THE ADDITION OF VICTIM INJURY POINTS? Id…1 / 2
-
Peters v. State, 128 So. 3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…v. State, 998 So. 2d 494, 507 n. 12 (Fla.2008); see, e.g., Matthews v. State, 714 So. 2d 469, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (defense counsel waived argument as to assessment of victim injury points by failing to make timely objection); Perryman v. State, 608 So. 2d 528, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“[T]he appellant advised the court that the computation was correct, and he expressly agreed to the assessment of points for victim injury. In these circumstances, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review.”). T…
-
Singleton v. State, 620 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ould the judge on remand make such a finding, he may use it as a ground for departure from the guidelines. See Karchesky. There are also two points related to the scoring of victim injury that require comment. First, relying upon Perryman v. State, 608 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the state advances the contention that Singleton’s attack upon the trial court’s assessment of victim injury points is barred for lack of contemporaneous objection. We have rejected that view in Morris v. State, 605 So. 2d 511 (…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- THE Florida BAR v. Rightmyer, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1986)
- Silas v. Morris, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Taylor v. State, 601 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1992)
- Hood v. State, 603 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)