RICHARD J. HUDSON, 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 sentence imposed was erroneous due to improper assessment of victim injury points and legal status points, and that resentencing was required in accordance with Heggs v. State.
[1] A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal.
[2] A defendant is entitled to resentencing in accordance with the laws in effect on the date the offenses were committed.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of sexual battery and false imprisonment. In his second direct appeal, he raised sentencing errors, including claims that his …
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 Legal Status Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with committing three counts of sexual battery with a deadly weapon or physical force likely to cause serious injury and one count of kidnapping on March 22, 1997. A jury found Appellant guilty of three separate counts of the lesser included offense of sexual battery with threat of force likely to cause serious personal injury, and one count of the lesser included offense of false imprisonment.
Appellant raises several sentencing errors in this, his second direct appeal. See Hudson v. State, 732 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Because we find Appellant’s sentence exceeds the statutory maximum and constitutes fundamental error, we affirm in part and reverse in part. Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000).
First, Appellant claims he is entitled to resentencing in accordance with Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). The State concedes error on this issue. We therefore vacate and reverse the sentence in its entirety, and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on March 22, 1997, the date Appellant committed these offenses.
Appellant also claims the trial court erred in assessing 240 victim injury points, i.e., 80 points for each count of sexual battery. We agree with Appellant and reverse. “Victim injury points may not be assessed for each count of sexual battery where the offenses were committed on the same victim.” Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We reverse and remand to the trial court to assess no more than 80 victim injury points to Appellant’s guidelines scoresheet.
Appellant also claims he was wrongly assessed four legal status points, which the State argues is harmless error. Because we reverse and remand this case for resentencing, we direct the trial court to correct this error as well. We find the remaining issues raised on appeal to be without merit.
Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
BARFIELD, C.J., BOOTH and WOLF, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jupiter v. State, 833 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…cember 1997, and all of which involved the same victim. At sentencing, the state argued that victim injury points should be assessed on the guidelines scoresheet for both the false imprisonment and the murder convictions. Relying on Hudson v. State, 765 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), a then recent decision [*170] by this court, appellant’s lawyers argued that victim injury points could be assessed only for one offense committed against a particular victim. After reading the Hudson decision and listening to a…1 / 2
-
Daneal J. Irons v. State, 787 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…Wolfish [*976] 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). We find that any violation of section 901.211 was de minimis. We decline to certify conflict on the sentencing issue because 'the position of our sister court in Hudson v. State, 765 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) and Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) seems unclear to us. See Lowery v. State, 754 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (declining to find express conflict where exact sentencing disposition in other case was unclea…
-
State v. Williams, 854 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…directed the corresponding points removed from the guideline scoresheet because of double jeopardy. The trial court also directed that the scoresheet reflect only 40 victim injury points because only one victim was involved, citing Hudson v. State, 765 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Appellee was resentenced to 69.9 months in prison. [*217] Appellant, the State of Florida, appeals the trial court’s orders granting Appellee’s 3.800 motion.1 The State argues that Ap-pellee’s double jeopardy claim is a claim ag…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Burrows v. State, 649 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Hudson v. State, 732 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Green Tree Vendor Servs. Corp. v. Lisi, 732 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)