Lapointe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lapointe v. State

587 So. 2d 667, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10376, 1991 WL 211417

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1232

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 587 So. 2d 667 (Lapointe 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

Lapointe v. State, 587 So. 2d 667, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10376, 1991 WL 211417 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWNEY, Judge.

This is a timely appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence on six counts, wherein the trial judge assessed 144 points because appellant was under legal constraint at the time of the commission of the criminal acts under consideration. On appeal, the sole question presented is whether the trial court erred in assessing points for each of the substantive offenses for which appellant was being sentenced.

Because the question had been certified to the supreme court by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Flowers v. State, 567 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), we withheld a decision in this case until resolution of Flowers. The supreme court has now authoritatively addressed the question in Flowers v. State, 586 So.2d 1058 (Fla.1991), holding that Florida’s Uniform Sentencing Guidelines do not require that legal constraint points be assessed for each offense committed while under legal constraint.

Accordingly, we reverse the sentences appealed from in this case and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to resentenee appellant in accordance with the [668]*668holding by the supreme court in the Flowers case.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GARRETT, J., concur.

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

DOWNEY, Judge.

This is a timely appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence on six counts, wherein the trial judge assessed 144 points because appellant was under legal constraint at the time of the commission of the criminal acts under consideration. On appeal, the sole question presented is whether the trial court erred in assessing points for each of the substantive offenses for which appellant was being sentenced.

Because the question had been certified to the supreme court by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Flowers v. State, 567 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), we withheld a decision in this case until resolution of Flowers. The supreme court has now authoritatively addressed the question in Flowers v. State, 586 So.2d 1058 (Fla.1991), holding that Florida’s Uniform Sentencing Guidelines do not require that legal constraint points be assessed for each offense committed while under legal constraint.

Accordingly, we reverse the sentences appealed from in this case and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to resentenee appellant in accordance with the [668]*668holding by the supreme court in the Flowers case.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GARRETT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 So. 2d 667, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10376, 1991 WL 211417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lapointe-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack