TOBY DEAN CHAPMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1993-10-20
No. 92-2687
GLICKSTEIN and KLEIN, JJ., and GROSS, ROBERT M., Associate Judge, concur.
625 So. 2d 133 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1993) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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

The court affirmed the appellant's convictions but reversed the sentences due to procedural errors in sentencing.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of four offenses, which were reversed on appeal due to a jury selection issue. On remand, he was tried separately for two inci…

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.

Appellant initially was charged by information with (1) armed attempted kidnapping, (2) aggravated assault, (3) armed kidnapping, and (4) aggravated battery. While all four offenses allegedly occurred on the same day, counts one and two involved a different incident and a different victim than counts three and four. After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of all four offenses. However, in Chapman v. State, 593 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), this court reversed appellant’s convictions due to the trial court’s failure to grant his challenge for cause to a prospective juror who indicated that she would not be able to be fair and impartial.

On remand, appellant was tried separately for the two incidents. He claims harmful error in one trial and in his sentencing, which took place at one hearing after both trials had resulted in convictions for the above charges.

We reject appellant’s claim of harmful error in trial and affirm all of his convictions. However, we agree the trial court erred in that (1) the record fails to indicate the trial court utilized a guidelines scoresheet for any of the sentences, and (2) the trial court failed to enter a written departure order. Accordingly, we reverse all of the sentences and remand for resentencing within the guidelines upon completion and consideration of a guidelines scoresheet.

GLICKSTEIN and KLEIN, JJ., and GROSS, ROBERT M., Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Chapman v. State, 651 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
    …PER CURIAM. Appellant’s first appeal resulted in a retrial. Chapman v. State, 593 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). On his second appeal, his convictions following retrial were affirmed, but his sentence was reversed. Chapman v. State, 625 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In this, appellant’s third appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in assessing the following costs as special conditions of probation: $200 for court costs per section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1989); $200 for public de…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw