Beasley v. State

569 So. 2d 525, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8616, 1990 WL 175763
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Beasley v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 565 So. 2d 721
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 13, 1990·No. No. 90-838·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State confesses error with respect to the sentence imposed on defendant Beasley after revocation of Beasley’s probation. The State and the defense agree that the sentence could not exceed the one-cell increase provided by Rule 3.701(d)(14), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329, 1331 (Fla.1990) (opinion on rehearing). The parties disagree on what was the maximum of the permitted range pursuant to Rule 3.701(d)(14). This appears to be attributable to scoring or computational errors in the guidelines scoresheet. We therefore reverse the sentencing order and remand for resentencing pursuant to Rule 3.701(d)(14) on a corrected scoresheet.

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

Beasley v. State, 569 So. 2d 525, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8616, 1990 WL 175763 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

569 So. 2d 525 (Beasley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ree v. State
565 So. 2d 1329 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1990)