Collier v. State

662 So. 2d 1035, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12299, 1995 WL 691960
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Collier v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 701 So. 2d 1197
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 22, 1995·No. No. 95-0665·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises two points with respect to his sentence, both of which have merit. First, the trial court erroneously considered offenses for which there was no conviction. See Mayo v. State, 518 So.2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Second, there was error in calculating appellant’s scoresheet by using the 15% multiplier where appellant scored 40.6, which is greater than 40 and technically falls outside the parameters for applying the multiplier. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.702(d)(16). The state concedes this error.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand appellant’s sentence with direction to impose a

sentence within the guidelines. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987). The multiplier is to be eliminated.

GUNTHER, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

Collier v. State, 662 So. 2d 1035, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12299, 1995 WL 691960 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

662 So. 2d 1035 (Collier v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shull v. Dugger
515 So. 2d 748 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Mayo v. State
518 So. 2d 458 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)