ANTONIO BROOME, 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.
Antonio Broome appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, shooting at a dwelling, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court affirmed the convictions but found merit in two sentencing issues: a scrivener's error in the judgment improperly classifying aggravated assault as a second degree felony rather than third degree, and the unconstitutionality of the 1995 sentencing guidelines under Florida's single-subject provision.
The convictions are affirmed. The judgment and scoresheet must be corrected to properly identify the aggravated assault crime as a third degree felony. The 1995 sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution's single-subject provision, and Broome is entitled to reconsideration of his sentence.
[1] A judgment incorrectly classifying a felony offense as a higher degree felony than charged and convicted is a scrivener's error that must be corrected.
[2] Sentencing based on the 1995 Florida sentencing guidelines is subject to reconsideration when the legislature's enactment of chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, violated the…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Because the judgment lists the conviction for aggravated assault as a second degree felony, Mr. Broome contends that the trial court must have improperly reclassified his conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm from a third degree felony to a second degree felony based on the use of a firearm, which is an element of his offense.”
States the primary issue regarding improper felony classification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBroome was convicted by jury of aggravated assault with a firearm (third degree felony under section 784.021), shooting at a dwelling (second degree f…
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.
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Antonio Broome appeals his convictions for aggravated assault, a third degree felony violation of section 784.021, Florida Statutes (1995); shooting at a dwelling, a second degree felony violation of section 790.19; and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a second degree felony violation of section 790.23. He raises one issue concerning his convictions and four issues concerning various aspects of sentencing. We find merit only in two of the sentencing issues.
The jury found Mr. Broome guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm, a third degree felony. See § 784.021. Because the judgment lists the conviction for aggravated assault as a second degree felony, Mr. Broome contends that the trial court must have improperly reclassified his conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm from a third degree felony to a second degree felony based on the use of a firearm, which is an element of his offense. See Tharp v. State, 677 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Vickers v. State, 630 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Without speculating as to how the error occurred, the State concedes that the aggravated assault with a firearm crime for which Mr. Broome should have been adjudicated and sentenced is a third degree felony. Fortunately, the scoresheet had the correct number of points for this crime because it was scored as a third degree felony; however, the scoresheet incorrectly listed the crime as an aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony. Mr. Broome is entitled to have these scrivener’s errors on his judgment and scoresheet corrected.
Mr. Broome was sentenced under the 1995 sentencing guidelines and contends that they are unconstitutional because the legislature’s enactment of chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, violated the single-subject provision of Article III, Section 6, of the Florida Constitution. We agree. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). These crimes occurred on July 10, 1996, so he is entitled to reconsideration of his sentence as we have recently outlined in Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Convictions affirmed; remanded for correction of judgment and scoresheet and for reconsideration of sentencing in accordance with Heggs and Smith.
PARKER, A.C.J., and PAUL W. DANAHY, (Senior) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Vickers v. State, 630 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Tharp v. State, 677 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)