Chapman v. State

672 So. 2d 637, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4377, 1996 WL 200231
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 26, 1996·No. No. 95-1076·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a sentence. The state has conceded that it was improper for the grand theft to be an “additional offense” under the sentencing guidelines’ confusing scheme. The grand theft should be the “primary offense” so that the court can legally habitualize the appellant on the burglary conviction and thus maximize the penalty, as the judge wanted to do and should do. Watson v. State, 658 So.2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Ricardo v. State, 608 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The scoresheet should be redone and sentencing must be redone. On remand the court cannot depart for the reason that there is a pattern of escalating criminal behavior. The behavior was a continuing pattern but not escalating.

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.

GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

Chapman v. State, 672 So. 2d 637, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4377, 1996 WL 200231 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

672 So. 2d 637 (Chapman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hunter v. State
732 So. 2d 10 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)