Bido v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bido v. State

172 So. 3d 500, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11344, 2015 WL 4549597

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 29, 2015

DocketNo. 3D15-1318

StatusPublished

This text of 172 So. 3d 500 (Bido v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bido v. State, 172 So. 3d 500, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11344, 2015 WL 4549597 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Alberto, 847 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that where defendant was placed on probation for a felony offense, violates that probation by committing a new offense, and is pending before the court for sentencing on both the violation of probation and the new offense, the probation offense may be scored as an “additional offense” if such scoring provides the most severe sanction and is otherwise consistent with the provisions of the rule and statute); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704(d) (defining “additional offense” as “any offense other than the primary offense for which an offender is convicted and which is pending before the court for sentencing at the time of the primary offense.”) (emphasis added). See also State v. Lamar, 659 So.2d 262, 265 (Fla.1995) (observing that “whenever a defendant is being sentenced for both a violation of probation and a new substantive offense, the violation of probation can be scored as either the primary offense or as prior record so long as it gives the most severe sanction. Likewise, the new substantive offense can be scored as the primary offense or as an additional offense provided the sentence results in the most severe sanction. It is evident that this sentencing scheme was intended to ‘punish repeat offenders more severely than first-time offender.’ ”)(quoting Peters v. State, 531 So.2d 121, 123 (Fla.1988)).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Alberto, 847 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that where defendant was placed on probation for a felony offense, violates that probation by committing a new offense, and is pending before the court for sentencing on both the violation of probation and the new offense, the probation offense may be scored as an “additional offense” if such scoring provides the most severe sanction and is otherwise consistent with the provisions of the rule and statute); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704(d) (defining “additional offense” as “any offense other than the primary offense for which an offender is convicted and which is pending before the court for sentencing at the time of the primary offense.”) (emphasis added). See also State v. Lamar, 659 So.2d 262, 265 (Fla.1995) (observing that “whenever a defendant is being sentenced for both a violation of probation and a new substantive offense, the violation of probation can be scored as either the primary offense or as prior record so long as it gives the most severe sanction. Likewise, the new substantive offense can be scored as the primary offense or as an additional offense provided the sentence results in the most severe sanction. It is evident that this sentencing scheme was intended to ‘punish repeat offenders more severely than first-time offender.’ ”)(quoting Peters v. State, 531 So.2d 121, 123 (Fla.1988)).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 So. 3d 500, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11344, 2015 WL 4549597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bido-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack