Jiles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jiles v. State

652 So. 2d 959, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3442, 1995 WL 143794

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 5, 1995

DocketNos. 94-00184, 94-01002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 652 So. 2d 959 (Jiles 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

Jiles v. State, 652 So. 2d 959, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3442, 1995 WL 143794 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentences, with one exception. We reverse his sentence for committing a lewd act on a child under the age of sixteen. The trial court erred in scoring 60 points for victim injury involving “contact, but no penetration.” The trial court did not indicate and the record does not reveal the extent, if any, of the physical trauma suffered by the [960]*960victim as a result of the defendant’s lewd act. Karchesky v. State, 591 So.2d 930 (Fla.1992). If these points are deleted, then .the presumptive range is 5½ to 12 years rather than 7 to 17 years. Because Mr. Jiles’ 15-year sentence for committing a lewd act is beyond the correct presumptive range, we reverse this sentence and remand for resentencing. Consistent with our recent decision in Wilson v. State, 648 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)), “[o]n remand, the trial court may reimpose the points, if appropriate, after a de novo hearing to determine the extent of victim injury.”

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

FRANK, C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentences, with one exception. We reverse his sentence for committing a lewd act on a child under the age of sixteen. The trial court erred in scoring 60 points for victim injury involving “contact, but no penetration.” The trial court did not indicate and the record does not reveal the extent, if any, of the physical trauma suffered by the [960]*960victim as a result of the defendant’s lewd act. Karchesky v. State, 591 So.2d 930 (Fla.1992). If these points are deleted, then .the presumptive range is 5½ to 12 years rather than 7 to 17 years. Because Mr. Jiles’ 15-year sentence for committing a lewd act is beyond the correct presumptive range, we reverse this sentence and remand for resentencing. Consistent with our recent decision in Wilson v. State, 648 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)), “[o]n remand, the trial court may reimpose the points, if appropriate, after a de novo hearing to determine the extent of victim injury.”

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

FRANK, C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 So. 2d 959, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3442, 1995 WL 143794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jiles-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack