Crenshaw v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crenshaw v. State

661 So. 2d 400, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10646, 1995 WL 601303

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2909

StatusPublished

This text of 661 So. 2d 400 (Crenshaw 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

Crenshaw v. State, 661 So. 2d 400, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10646, 1995 WL 601303 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

After careful review, this court finds the appellant’s initial argument, that the trial court erred when sentencing on Case Numbers 93-2915 and 94-1338 because it failed to utilize a single guidelines score-sheet for both offenses, to be without merit. Wood v. State, 655 So.2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (utilizing 1994 scoresheet for new substantive offense and 1993 scoresheet for prior forgery offense where probation had been revoked). See also Heath v. State, 656 So.2d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (trial court did not err when it used two guideline scoresheets, one for offenses committed in 1993, and an[401]*401other for offenses committed in 1994). § 921.001(4)(b)l., 2., Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994).

We agree, however, that the 1994 score-sheet was not as comprehensive as is contemplated by Rule 3.702(d)(1), Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure. As such, the sentence in Case Number 94-1338 is reversed and remanded for a corrected scoresheet and re-sentencing.

•REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PETERSON, C.J., and SHARP, W., J., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

After careful review, this court finds the appellant’s initial argument, that the trial court erred when sentencing on Case Numbers 93-2915 and 94-1338 because it failed to utilize a single guidelines score-sheet for both offenses, to be without merit. Wood v. State, 655 So.2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (utilizing 1994 scoresheet for new substantive offense and 1993 scoresheet for prior forgery offense where probation had been revoked). See also Heath v. State, 656 So.2d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (trial court did not err when it used two guideline scoresheets, one for offenses committed in 1993, and an[401]*401other for offenses committed in 1994). § 921.001(4)(b)l., 2., Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994).

We agree, however, that the 1994 score-sheet was not as comprehensive as is contemplated by Rule 3.702(d)(1), Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure. As such, the sentence in Case Number 94-1338 is reversed and remanded for a corrected scoresheet and re-sentencing.

•REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PETERSON, C.J., and SHARP, W., J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 So. 2d 400, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10646, 1995 WL 601303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crenshaw-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack