WILLIE GLASCO, JR., 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.
Willie Glasco appeals the summary denial of his motion challenging the legality of his sentence for kidnapping and sexual battery. Glasco argues that victim injury points were improperly scored under his sentencing guidelines, but the appellate court affirms, finding any scoring error harmless given the brutal nature of the crimes and the trial judge's clear intent to impose the maximum sentence regardless.
The court affirmed the sentence, finding: (1) the Karchesky issue is foreclosed by law of the case; (2) while the events could constitute two episodes rather than one, at least 80 victim injury points were properly scored; and (3) any scoring error was harmless because the trial judge would have imposed the maximum permissible sentence regardless, given the severity of the crimes and victim's injuries.
[1] A prior appellate decision affirming a conviction without opinion establishes the law of the case regarding issues raised and decided in the prior appeal.
[2] A claim that offenses constitute a single criminal episode, rather than multiple ones, raises a factual question that should be raised in a motion for postconviction reli…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It appears the victim in this case was confronted as she was walking down the street at night. Appellant grabbed her, punched her in the nose, hit her, threw her to the ground and choked her. Then he dragged her by her hair to some nearby woods where he choked her again, and raped her numerous times.”
Establishes the brutal facts underlying the conviction and supports the harmless error analysis
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1991, Glasco was convicted of one count of kidnapping and seven counts of sexual battery involving a single victim. The victim was attacked while w…
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
W. SHARP, Judge.
Glaseo appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he challenges the legality of his sentence. In 1991, Glaseo was tried and convicted for one count for kidnapping1 and seven counts of sexual battery likely to cause personal injury,2 all involving one victim. He was sentenced to eight consecutive life sentences. We affirm.
Glaseo argues 320 victim injury points were improperly scored pursuant to Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla.1992), a case that was decided after Glasco’s direct appeal in this case.
This court affirmed the direct appeal without opinion, but court records indicate Glaseo argued in the direct appeal that victim injury points for all eight counts (320) should not have been scored. See Glasco v. State, 589 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Later, Glaseo raised the scoring issue in a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850, relying upon Karchesky.
The state argued the record supports a finding that the victim suffered actual injury above and beyond “penetration” in this case.
This court affirmed without opinion. See Glasco v. State, 642 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We think the Karchesky issue is foreclosed and settled by the law of the case.
In this proceeding, Glaseo also challenges the proper scoring of injury points on the ground that the trial court should have scored only a total of 40 points rather than 40 points for each count, since the crimes were committed as part of a single criminal episode. See Wilson v. State, 467 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1985). Whether the offenses committed by a defendant constitute a single episode or multiple ones raises a factual question which should be raised in a rule 3.850 motion. See, e.g., Stocker v. State, 646 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Morris v. State, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We could therefore affirm on the ground that Glasco’s collateral relief sought in this 3.800(a) proceeding is improper.
However, the facts in this ease were thoroughly developed at trial, in the state’s response, and in the briefs that are part of this court’s records. It appears the victim in this case was confronted as she was walking down the street at night. Appellant grabbed her, punched her in the nose, hit her, threw her to the ground and choked her. Then he dragged her by her hair to some nearby woods where he choked her again, and raped her numerous times. Medical personnel testified she had numerous cuts and abrasions, her face and nose were swollen, hair from her head had been ripped out, and a tampon had to be medically removed, in addition to obvious trauma to her vagina and anus. In addition, the victim testified she had experienced psychological damage from the experience to the extent that she lost her job. The court remarked at sentencing that this was one of the most aggravated, brutal crimes he had seen in his 20-year career. In our view, the events could clearly constitute two episodes — one involving the initial attack and kidnapping, and the other involving the multiple rapes. See Dolan v. State, 598 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Smith v. State, 463 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Thus, at least 80 victim injury points were properly scored. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701.d.7 provided (at the time of the sentencing) that “victim injury shall be scored for each victim physically injured during a criminal episode or transaction.”
Scoring 80 points for victim injury puts Glaseo in a lower sentencing bracket, but one that does permit a life sentence, at the maximum in the permitted bracket. In view of the physical and psychological trauma suffered by the victim and the statements of the trial judge at sentencing, we think it is clear the trial judge would have extended the sentence to the maximum permissible limit, had it been confronted with the lesser score. Thus, we conclude any scoring error in this ease was harmless. Harrelson v. State, 616 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 624 So. 2d 268 (Fla.1993).
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . § 787.01, Fla.Stat. (1987).
. § 794.011(3), Fla.Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glasco v. State, 914 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…47 (Fla.1999), both the trial court and this court have considered and denied his claims on the merits on more than one occasion, although in slightly different permutations. See Glasco v. State, 642 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Glasco v. State, 656 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Glasco v. State, 892 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We view this petition as frivolous and an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (opining “Enough is enough.”); Henderson v. State, 9…
-
State v. Duke, 709 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…); Thomas v. State, 531 So. 2d 708, [*582] 709 (Fla.1988); Smith v. State, 632 So. 2d 644, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We think this issue is sufficiently raised in this case, and because the state has urged us to address it, we do. Morehead v. State, 656 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) is a controlling decision in this case. In Morehead, this court held that in order to prove an attempt crime, some actual overt step must be taken or an act in furtherance of committing the crime must be done. The overt act must…
-
Daron Lavon Huston v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…y unjust. State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 292 (Fla. 2003). The State also argues the motion was properly denied because determination of whether there was one or more criminal episodes would require an evidentiary hearing, citing Glasco v. State, 656 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), and similar cases. But Glasco is distinguishable, and these cases fail to show that this issue necessarily requires an evidentiary hearing. Sentencing errors that depend upon the number of criminal episodes and result in an il…
Authorities Cited
- Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1992)
- Silas v. Morris, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Wilson v. State, 467 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1985)
- Harrelson v. State, 616 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Elbert Roy Smith v. State, 463 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Stocker v. State, 646 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Dolan v. State, 598 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)