CHRISTOPHER MONTOURE, 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.
Montoure was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation and appealed his sentence. The court affirmed the imposition of sex offender probation conditions but reversed the trial court's scoring of an out-of-state South Carolina conviction, which was improperly elevated to a level seven offense when it should have been scored as a level five offense based on statutory elements rather than trial facts.
The trial court erred by relying on Montoure's testimony from trial to determine whether the out-of-state crime had a Florida equivalent. The South Carolina conviction should have been scored as a level five offense because section 800.04 does not contain an attempt provision and must be considered with section 777.04(4)(a), which ranks attempts two levels below the completed offense. This reduces the maximum sentence from 46.9 months to 44.5 months.
[1] A trial court must compare the elements of an out-of-state crime to the elements of a Florida crime to determine equivalency for sentencing scoresheet purposes.
[2] A trial court may not consider trial facts or a defendant's testimony when determining whether an out-of-state crime has a Florida equivalent for sentencing.
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 intelligence“In order to determine whether an out-of-state crime has a Florida equivalent, the trial court must compare the elements of the out-of-state crime to the elements of the Florida crime.”
Establishes the proper legal standard for evaluating out-of-state convictions in sentencing calculations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMontoure was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation. In calculating his sentencing scoresheet, the trial court included a prior out-of-state con…
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.
[*794] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from Appellant’s judgment and sentence. We affirm the trial court’s imposition of sex offender conditions of probation without discussion. See Williams v. State, 879 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Because the trial court erred in scoring Appellant’s out-of-state conviction as a level seven offense, we reverse.
Appellant was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation. When calculating Appellant’s scoresheet, the trial court included Appellant’s conviction for violation of Title 16, 16-15-140 of the South Carolina Code. The trial court determined that the out-of-state conviction was equivalent to section 800.04, Florida Statutes, which is a level seven offense. Under this calculation, Appellant’s maximum sentence was 46.9 months’ imprisonment. Appellant filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion arguing that the South Carolina law was not equivalent to section 800.04, Florida Statutes, because the South Carolina law punished an attempt and a completion of a lewd act, and the Florida version only punished the completion of the act. The trial court relied on Appellant’s own testimony to determine that Appellant did complete the act charged in South Carolina and to deny Appellant’s motion.
As conceded by the State, the trial court erred in considering Appellant’s testimony. In order to determine whether an out-of-state crime has a Florida equivalent, the trial court must compare the elements of the out-of-state crime to the elements of the Florida crime. Clark v. State, 823 So. 2d 809, 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The trial court is not allowed to consider facts from the trial to make a determination of whether the out-of-state crime has an equivalent in Florida. Snipes v. State, 793 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
Because section 800.04, Florida Statutes, does not contain a provision for an attempt, it must be considered in conjunction with section 777.04(4)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that the attempt of a lewd act upon a child will be ranked two levels below the offense attempted. Thus, Appellant’s attempted lewd act should have been scored as a level five offense, not a level seven offense. This change would reduce Appellant’s maximum sentence from 46.9 months’ to 44.5 months’ imprisonment. We therefore reverse the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion on this issue and remand for resentencing.
AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. State, 260 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…etermining whether a conviction is analogous to a Florida crime. Dautel v. State, 658 So. 2d 88, 91 (Fla. 1995); Bracey v. State, 109 So. 3d 311, 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Michaud v. State, 2 So. 3d 375, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Montoure v. State, 880 So. 2d 793, 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Knarich v. State, 866 So. 2d 165, 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Snipes, 793 So. 2d at 1108; Holybrice v. State, 753 So. 2d 621, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Lee v. State, 675 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Appellant has…
-
McGhee v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Snipes v. State, 793 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Williams v. State, 879 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Octavious Monshovia Clark v. State, 823 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)