Gearhart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gearhart v. State

573 So. 2d 1015, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 749, 1991 WL 10410

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1991

DocketNo. 90-896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 573 So. 2d 1015 (Gearhart 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

Gearhart v. State, 573 So. 2d 1015, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 749, 1991 WL 10410 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal. We find that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion for continuance in order to secure a private attorney under the circumstances in this case.

[1016]*1016Appellant also contends that he should have been sentenced on all pending cases in both Leon and Wakulla Counties under one sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The appellant was sentenced in Leon County while the pending cases in Wakulla County had only been set for hearing. In this situation where all pending cases are not ready for sentencing, in order to receive a simultaneous sentence, the defendant must request that a trial court delay sentencing so that a single scoresheet be used, and he must show that the use of a single score-sheet would not result in an unreasonable delay in sentencing. See Clark v. State, 572 So.2d 1387 (Fla.1991). As appellant did not move for simultaneous sentencing at the time of his Leon County sentencing hearing, he is now procedurally barred from raising this issue for the first time on appeal. The trial court is affirmed.

SMITH, BARFIELD and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal. We find that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion for continuance in order to secure a private attorney under the circumstances in this case.

[1016]*1016Appellant also contends that he should have been sentenced on all pending cases in both Leon and Wakulla Counties under one sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The appellant was sentenced in Leon County while the pending cases in Wakulla County had only been set for hearing. In this situation where all pending cases are not ready for sentencing, in order to receive a simultaneous sentence, the defendant must request that a trial court delay sentencing so that a single scoresheet be used, and he must show that the use of a single score-sheet would not result in an unreasonable delay in sentencing. See Clark v. State, 572 So.2d 1387 (Fla.1991). As appellant did not move for simultaneous sentencing at the time of his Leon County sentencing hearing, he is now procedurally barred from raising this issue for the first time on appeal. The trial court is affirmed.

SMITH, BARFIELD and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 So. 2d 1015, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 749, 1991 WL 10410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gearhart-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack