Cabreriza v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cabreriza v. State

871 So. 2d 1018, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5846, 2004 WL 894564

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 28, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-2211

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 871 So. 2d 1018 (Cabreriza 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

Cabreriza v. State, 871 So. 2d 1018, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5846, 2004 WL 894564 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David Cabreriza (“the defendant”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. As the State properly concedes, the trial court erred in scoring the first degree murder as an offense for conviction on the sentencing guideline scoresheet, since the guidelines apply only to noncapital felonies. See Doak v. State, 671 So.2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Stuart v. State, 536 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The first degree murder charge should not have been reflected as the primary offense on the defendant’s scoresheet. Armed robbery and armed burglary should have been the only offenses listed

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing. In all other respects, the order below is affirmed. On remand, the defendant’s first degree murder conviction may be considered by the trial court as a reason for departing from the guidelines. See Stuart, 536 So.2d at 364.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

David Cabreriza (“the defendant”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. As the State properly concedes, the trial court erred in scoring the first degree murder as an offense for conviction on the sentencing guideline scoresheet, since the guidelines apply only to noncapital felonies. See Doak v. State, 671 So.2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Stuart v. State, 536 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The first degree murder charge should not have been reflected as the primary offense on the defendant’s scoresheet. Armed robbery and armed burglary should have been the only offenses listed

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing. In all other respects, the order below is affirmed. On remand, the defendant’s first degree murder conviction may be considered by the trial court as a reason for departing from the guidelines. See Stuart, 536 So.2d at 364.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

871 So. 2d 1018, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5846, 2004 WL 894564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabreriza-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack