Humphrey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Humphrey v. State

543 So. 2d 420, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1232, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2769, 1989 WL 51214

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 18, 1989·No. No. 88-908·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

Points for “legal constraint” were improperly scored in computing appellant’s recommended guidelines sentence, because nothing in the record before this court supports the trial court’s conclusion that at the time of appellant’s arrest here there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest on a charge of contempt for “failure to appear for a criminal judicial proceeding.” See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)6. Because the elimination of these points reduces the recommended sentence, we vacate the sentence and remand the case for recalculation of the scoresheet and for resentencing.

Sentence VACATED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

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

ORFINGER, Judge.

Points for “legal constraint” were improperly scored in computing appellant’s recommended guidelines sentence, because nothing in the record before this court supports the trial court’s conclusion that at the time of appellant’s arrest here there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest on a charge of contempt for “failure to appear for a criminal judicial proceeding.” See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)6. Because the elimination of these points reduces the recommended sentence, we vacate the sentence and remand the case for recalculation of the scoresheet and for resentencing.

Sentence VACATED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

Humphrey v. State, 543 So. 2d 420, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1232, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2769, 1989 WL 51214 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

543 So. 2d 420 (Humphrey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related