Barron v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barron v. State

647 So. 2d 225, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9828, 1994 WL 558495

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Barron v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4790 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 14, 1994·No. No. 93-00949·Published

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

Terry Barron challenges his judgment and sentence for two counts of attempted murder in the first degree and burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery with a dangerous weapon. We affirm. However, we agree that two of the four reasons given for the upward departure sentence are invalid.

Extraordinary physical injury to the victims cannot be used as a basis for departure because the victims’ permanent scarring and disfigurement were factored into the seoresheet. See Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 692 (Fla.1988). Likewise, excessive use of force is an invalid reason because it was factored into the guidelines by scoring points for victim injury. See Waychoff v. State, 624 So.2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Nevertheless, because the remaining reasons for departure are valid, we affirm the departure sentence. See § 921.001(5), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1992); Nixon v. State, 595 So.2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

FRANK, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FULMER, Judge.

Terry Barron challenges his judgment and sentence for two counts of attempted murder in the first degree and burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery with a dangerous weapon. We affirm. However, we agree that two of the four reasons given for the upward departure sentence are invalid.

Extraordinary physical injury to the victims cannot be used as a basis for departure because the victims’ permanent scarring and disfigurement were factored into the seoresheet. See Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 692 (Fla.1988). Likewise, excessive use of force is an invalid reason because it was factored into the guidelines by scoring points for victim injury. See Waychoff v. State, 624 So.2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Nevertheless, because the remaining reasons for departure are valid, we affirm the departure sentence. See § 921.001(5), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1992); Nixon v. State, 595 So.2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

FRANK, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

Barron v. State, 647 So. 2d 225, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9828, 1994 WL 558495 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

647 So. 2d 225 (Barron v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related