Judy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Judy v. State

756 So. 2d 1089, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5161, 2000 WL 524825

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-0980

StatusPublished

This text of 756 So. 2d 1089 (Judy 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

Judy v. State, 756 So. 2d 1089, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5161, 2000 WL 524825 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

JOANOS, J.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him without an accurate, verified scoresheet. Prior to the trial court’s pronouncement-of sentence, appellant contested the accuracy of an arson conviction scored as part of his prior record. Appellant contended he was never convicted of arson. The prosecutor submitted a certified conviction for one count of attempted arson, but indicated he did not have certified convictions for other pri- or record scored on the scoresheet. Because the trial court failed to require the state to present corroborating evidence of the arson conviction scored on the guidelines scoresheet, we must vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. See Calhoun v. State, 721 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hamilton v. State, 658 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 583 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing, with directions to afford the state an opportunity to corroborate the challenged arson conviction before appellant is resentenced pursuant to an accurate, verified scoresheet.

BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

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

JOANOS, J.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him without an accurate, verified scoresheet. Prior to the trial court’s pronouncement-of sentence, appellant contested the accuracy of an arson conviction scored as part of his prior record. Appellant contended he was never convicted of arson. The prosecutor submitted a certified conviction for one count of attempted arson, but indicated he did not have certified convictions for other pri- or record scored on the scoresheet. Because the trial court failed to require the state to present corroborating evidence of the arson conviction scored on the guidelines scoresheet, we must vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. See Calhoun v. State, 721 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hamilton v. State, 658 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 583 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing, with directions to afford the state an opportunity to corroborate the challenged arson conviction before appellant is resentenced pursuant to an accurate, verified scoresheet.

BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

756 So. 2d 1089, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5161, 2000 WL 524825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judy-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack