Heidrick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Heidrick v. State

553 So. 2d 795, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7194, 1989 WL 153604

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 21, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2008

StatusPublished

This text of 553 So. 2d 795 (Heidrick 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

Heidrick v. State, 553 So. 2d 795, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7194, 1989 WL 153604 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL, Chief Judge.

Joseph Heidrick appeals from the judgments and sentences entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder¹ and burglary of a dwelling.² Heidrick contends, among other things, that the trial court erred in failing to apply sentencing guidelines standards in sentencing him on the burglary charge. We agree on that point and reverse.

On Independence Day 1987 Heidrick shot and fatally wounded his estranged wife, Jennifer. As a result he was charged with first degree murder, burglary of dwelling, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and use of firearm while committing or attempting to commit a felony. A jury found him guilty of committing the offenses of first degree felony murder, and burglary of dwelling and the trial court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict. The court then sentenced Heidrick to life imprisonment on each charge with a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years on the murder charge. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

As stated, we find merit only in Heid-rick’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to utilize a sentencing guidelines scoresheet in imposing sentence on the burglary conviction. The state has conceded this was error. See Worthington v. State, 501 So.2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“guidelines do not apply to capital felonies either as primary offenses or as additional offenses at conviction. However, a score-sheet must be prepared and utilized covering all offenses subject to guidelines sentencing which are pending before the court for sentencing.”)

Accordingly, we affirm both adjudications of guilt and the sentence imposed for the murder conviction but reverse the sentence imposed for the burglary conviction and remand that issue to the lower court for resentencing.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

DANIEL, Chief Judge.

Joseph Heidrick appeals from the judgments and sentences entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder¹ and burglary of a dwelling.² Heidrick contends, among other things, that the trial court erred in failing to apply sentencing guidelines standards in sentencing him on the burglary charge. We agree on that point and reverse.

On Independence Day 1987 Heidrick shot and fatally wounded his estranged wife, Jennifer. As a result he was charged with first degree murder, burglary of dwelling, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and use of firearm while committing or attempting to commit a felony. A jury found him guilty of committing the offenses of first degree felony murder, and burglary of dwelling and the trial court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict. The court then sentenced Heidrick to life imprisonment on each charge with a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years on the murder charge. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

As stated, we find merit only in Heid-rick’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to utilize a sentencing guidelines scoresheet in imposing sentence on the burglary conviction. The state has conceded this was error. See Worthington v. State, 501 So.2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“guidelines do not apply to capital felonies either as primary offenses or as additional offenses at conviction. However, a score-sheet must be prepared and utilized covering all offenses subject to guidelines sentencing which are pending before the court for sentencing.”)

Accordingly, we affirm both adjudications of guilt and the sentence imposed for the murder conviction but reverse the sentence imposed for the burglary conviction and remand that issue to the lower court for resentencing.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

553 So. 2d 795, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7194, 1989 WL 153604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heidrick-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack