LARRY C. WASHINGTON, 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.
Appellant's convictions for sexual abuse of his daughter were affirmed, but his sentences on certain counts were remanded because the 1995 sentencing guidelines under which he was sentenced were found unconstitutional, requiring resentencing under the 1994 guidelines.
Convictions for sexual activity with a child, lewd and lascivious assault, and sexual battery are affirmed, but sentencing on counts XI through XVII is remanded for resentencing under the 1994 guidelines if the 1995 sentence could not have been imposed under those guidelines.
[1] A sentence imposed under Chapter 95-184 sentencing guidelines, found unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution's single subject provision, must be remanded for rese…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLarry Washington was convicted of multiple counts of sexual activity with his daughter, a child between ages 12 and 18, lewd and lascivious assault of…
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 Sexual Activity With A Child cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Larry Washington, appeals from his conviction on charges of sexual activity with his daughter, a child between the ages of 12 and 18 (Counts I-IV), lewd and lascivious assault of his daughter, a child under the age of 16 (Counts V, X) and sexual battery of his daughter, a child between the ages of 12 and 18 (Counts VI-IX, XI-XVII). Appellant also appeals his sentence on Counts XI through XVII. We affirm the convictions but remand on the sentencing issue.
The dates of appellant’s offenses, as set forth in Counts XI through XIV of the information, fall within the window period within which one may challenge a sentence imposed under Chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida. Chapter 95-184 was found to violate the single subject provision of the Florida Constitution. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000) (holding that the window period for challenging Chapter 95-184 closed on May 24, 1997); see also Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). The record in this case does not contain a 1994 scoresheet. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to determine if appellant’s sentence on Counts XI through XVII under the 1995 guidelines could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines without departure. If the sentence could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines, then appellant must be re-sentenced according to the 1994 guidelines.
Affirmed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WARNER, C.J., SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)