Horne v. State

593 So. 2d 309, 1992 WL 13828
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 31, 1992
Docket91-1444
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 593 So. 2d 309 (Horne 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
Horne v. State, 593 So. 2d 309, 1992 WL 13828 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

593 So.2d 309 (1992)

Charles Randall HORNE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 91-1444.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

January 31, 1992.

*310 James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lyle Hitchens, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

HARRIS, Judge.

Appellant, a juvenile, was prosecuted as an adult and convicted of robbery with a firearm and attempted robbery with a firearm. The trial court imposed concurrent split sentences of eight years incarceration followed by five years probation. The incarcerative portion fell within the guidelines.

Appellant contends that the trial court violated his sentencing rights as a juvenile by imposing adult sanctions without considering the statutory criteria in section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990). We agree.

Section 39.059(7)(c) lists six criteria for consideration by the court before imposing adult sanctions. Section 39.059(7)(d) states that any decision to impose adult sanctions shall be in writing and in conformity with each of the criteria. The court must render a specific finding of fact and state the reasons for imposing adult sanctions. See Surrency v. State, 585 So.2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Taylor v. State, 573 So.2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Lang v. State, 566 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Appellant's second issue concerns the use of a legal constraint multiplier. The supreme court has held that legal status points may be scored only once. See Flowers v. State, 586 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 1991). This court has held that use of a legal constraint multiplier is not harmless merely because a defendant's sentence falls within the permitted range. See Terry v. State, 588 So.2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Conviction AFFIRMED; sentences REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing.

COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

McGreevey v. State
717 So. 2d 1111 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Patterson v. State
641 So. 2d 456 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Barrett v. State
608 So. 2d 570 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
593 So. 2d 309, 1992 WL 13828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horne-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.