JIMMY ROSIER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed drug trafficking convictions and sentences, rejecting challenges to cross-examination limitations and Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet calculations.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of the State's key witness, and the sentences imposed were proper even though the scoresheet included offenses later nolle prossed.
[1] Sentences imposed under a Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet containing calculation errors are affirmed if the sentences could have been imposed under a corrected scores…
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 intelligenceJimmy Rosier was charged with sale of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance. A jury found him guilty of both counts, and the…
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 Sale Of Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jimmy Rosier (Appellant) was charged with one count of sale of a controlled substance (Count One) and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Count Two). The jury found him guilty of both charged offenses, and the trial court sen tenced him to ten and five years’ incarceration, respectively, on Counts One and Two. Appellant contends that the trial court erred 1) in limiting the defense’s cross-examination of the State’s key witness and 2) in calculating the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet by including as “additional offenses” two offenses (which added 5.4 points total) that later were nolle prossed after Appellant was allowed to withdraw his plea regarding those offenses. Finding no abuse of discretion in the limiting of cross-examination, we affirm the convictions. See Lukehart v. State, 776 So. 2d 906 (Fla.2000); Moore v. State, 701 So. 2d 545, 549 (Fla.1997). As to the sentencing scoresheet issue, we rely on the reasoning in Romero v. State, 805 So. 2d 92, 93-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (Altenbernd, J., concurring with opinion), and affirm the sentences because the sentences actually imposed could have been imposed under a corrected scoresheet (without a departure). See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620, 627 (Fla.2000); Sain v. State, 824 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
Appellant’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arthur v. State, 927 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…to his sentence in case number 99-177 are without merit as he lacks standing to challenge the scoresheet computation where these offenses did not occur in the Heggs window and where the sentence imposed is not otherwise illegal. See Rosier v. State, 864 So. 2d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet errors are harmless where a sentence is not illegal if a sentence could be imposed under a correctly calculated scoresheet). In the instant case, the record evidences the trial…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Moore v. State, 701 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1997)
- Lukehart v. State, 776 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2000)
- Romero v. State, 805 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Sain v. State, 824 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- McSWAIN v. State, 824 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)