Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Lifhred v. State

Lifhred v. State

598 So. 2d 335, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6432, 1992 WL 115802
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 3, 1992
DocketNo. 90-1705
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 598 So. 2d 335 (Lifhred 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
Lifhred v. State, 598 So. 2d 335, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6432, 1992 WL 115802 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction and find only one error in the sentence, appellant having [336]*336contended three to exist. Appellant correctly asserts that the trial court erred in multiplying the legal constraint factor on appellant’s scoresheet by four, once for each offense at conviction. The supreme court recently disapproved of using a multiplier for calculating legal constraint points. Flowers v. State, 586 So.2d 1058, 1060 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand with direction to resen-tence in compliance with Flowers.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lifred v. State
643 So. 2d 94 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
598 So. 2d 335, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6432, 1992 WL 115802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lifhred-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.