Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Brown v. State

Brown v. State

623 So. 2d 867, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9432, 1993 WL 355193
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 569 So. 2d 1320 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 17, 1993·No. No. 92-2102·Published

Opinion

DIAMANTIS, Judge.

Anthony Brown challenges the legality of his sentence, claiming that the trial court erred in computing his sentencing guidelines scoresheet because the court utilized a multiplier in assessing legal constraint points. See Flowers v. State, 586 So.2d 1058 (Fla.1991). We conclude that this matter must be remanded to the trial court for a hearing because the instant record does not contain the pertinent documents concerning the sentence which was imposed following an earlier reversal by this court. Brown v. State, 581 So.2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

VACATED; REMANDED for a hearing.

HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.

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

Brown v. State, 623 So. 2d 867, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9432, 1993 WL 355193 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

623 So. 2d 867 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Flowers v. State
586 So. 2d 1058 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Brown v. State
581 So. 2d 242 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)