Lifhred v. State
598 So. 2d 335, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6432, 1992 WL 115802
Opinion
We affirm the conviction and find only one error in the sentence, appellant having [336] contended 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lifhred v. State, 598 So. 2d 335, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6432, 1992 WL 115802 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).
598 So. 2d 335 (Lifhred v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lifred v. State
643 So. 2d 94 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)