Crystal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crystal v. State

657 So. 2d 77, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7507, 1995 WL 410700

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 13, 1995

DocketNo. 93-3412

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 657 So. 2d 77 (Crystal 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

Crystal v. State, 657 So. 2d 77, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7507, 1995 WL 410700 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Roderick Kimberly Crystal (Crystal) appeals his convictions and concurrent sentences for burglary of an occupied dwelling with assault while armed, attempted third-degree murder with a weapon, and aggravated battery. These crimes occurred on March 8, 1991. Crystal v. State, 616 So.2d 150, 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The instant case is here on direct review, after retrial based on this court’s earlier remand. See id.

Crystal was sentenced in September 1993 to concurrent prison terms as follows: Count one (burglary of an occupied dwelling with assault while armed) — twenty-two years; count two (attempted third-degree murder with a weapon) — fifteen years; and count three (aggravated battery) — five years. The Florida Supreme Court however recently held: “[W]e recede from the holding in Am-lotte[¹] that there is a crime of attempted felony murder in Florida. This decision must be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final.” State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995). Crystal’s conviction for attempted third-degree murder rests on his conviction for the felony of aggravated battery. See Crystal, 616 So.2d at 151. We thus must reverse Crystal’s conviction for attempted felony murder. Gray.

We accordingly reverse and vacate Crystal’s conviction for attempted third-degree murder; and remand for resentencing on the remaining counts, as recomputation of the sentencing guidelines scoresheet may affect the range of sentences permitted for the remaining counts. However, since the initial sentences were based upon an inaccurate scoresheet, we note that the trial judge may consider the imposition of any sentence which otherwise would have been permissible at the initial sentencing hearing. See Roberts v. State, 547 So.2d 129 (Fla.1989).

JOANOS, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ. concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Roderick Kimberly Crystal (Crystal) appeals his convictions and concurrent sentences for burglary of an occupied dwelling with assault while armed, attempted third-degree murder with a weapon, and aggravated battery. These crimes occurred on March 8, 1991. Crystal v. State, 616 So.2d 150, 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The instant case is here on direct review, after retrial based on this court’s earlier remand. See id.

Crystal was sentenced in September 1993 to concurrent prison terms as follows: Count one (burglary of an occupied dwelling with assault while armed) — twenty-two years; count two (attempted third-degree murder with a weapon) — fifteen years; and count three (aggravated battery) — five years. The Florida Supreme Court however recently held: “[W]e recede from the holding in Am-lotte[¹] that there is a crime of attempted felony murder in Florida. This decision must be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final.” State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995). Crystal’s conviction for attempted third-degree murder rests on his conviction for the felony of aggravated battery. See Crystal, 616 So.2d at 151. We thus must reverse Crystal’s conviction for attempted felony murder. Gray.

We accordingly reverse and vacate Crystal’s conviction for attempted third-degree murder; and remand for resentencing on the remaining counts, as recomputation of the sentencing guidelines scoresheet may affect the range of sentences permitted for the remaining counts. However, since the initial sentences were based upon an inaccurate scoresheet, we note that the trial judge may consider the imposition of any sentence which otherwise would have been permissible at the initial sentencing hearing. See Roberts v. State, 547 So.2d 129 (Fla.1989).

JOANOS, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 So. 2d 77, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7507, 1995 WL 410700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crystal-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack