JOHN SHIRLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
COVINGTON, Judge.
John Shirley appeals the sentences that were imposed after this court remanded his case for resentencing. See Shirley v. State, 775 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Shirley contends that the trial court improperly resentenced him using the 1995 sentencing guidelines even though the offenses occurred or began during the window period set forth in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), and Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000). The State properly confesses error. Shirley’s sentences are therefore reversed, and this cause is remanded for resentencing under the guidelines that were valid on the dates of Shirley’s offenses. See Trapp, 760 So. 2d at 928.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, C.J, and DAVIS, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 918 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…, the trial court’s instruction is still fundamentally erroneous. It permitted the jury to convict Ms. Miller of aggravated assault if one alleged [*417] victim was threatened while the other had a well-founded fear of violence. See Tindle v. State, 832 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); James v. State, 706 So. 2d 64, 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding instruction was fundamental error when it permitted the jury to find that one alleged victim was threatened while the other had a well-founded fear that violence was…
-
Fuller v. State, 942 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…aggravated assault[, see § 784.021, Fla. Stat. (2004),] if one alleged victim was threatened while the other [alleged victim] had a well-founded fear of violence.” Miller v. State, 918 So. 2d 415, 416-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also Tindle v. State, 832 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); James v. State, 706 So. 2d 64, 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial. Reversed and remanded. FULMER, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.…
-
Bryant v. State, 30 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…e names of both officers for each count were fundamentally erroneous because it improperly allowed jury to convict on both battery counts even if they found that only one of the officers was intentionally touched or struck by Love); Tindle v. State, 832 So. 2d 966, 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (determining the use of “and/or” in the jury instructions was fundamentally erroneous because the evidence presented at trial supported a finding that Tindle committed an aggravated assault against Mixon, not Williams, as Wi…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Richardson v. State, 775 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)