Looney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Looney v. State

728 So. 2d 321, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2161, 1999 WL 95031

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1999

DocketNo. 97-04117

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 728 So. 2d 321 (Looney 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

Looney v. State, 728 So. 2d 321, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2161, 1999 WL 95031 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Steven Looney challenges his sentence for carrying a concealed firearm. He correctly contends that it was error for the trial court to assess eighteen additional sentencing points for possessing a firearm where the underlying crime was carrying a concealed firearm. See White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla.1998). The State concedes error but contends that it is harmless error because Looney’s sentence, with a corrected score-sheet, would be unchanged. Although we agree with the State that the sentence Looney is now serving would not change, the scoresheet error could affect a subsequent sentence should Looney violate his probation. Accordingly, we remand with instructions to the trial court to correct the scoresheet.

Sentence affirmed; remanded with instructions to correct the scoresheet.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Steven Looney challenges his sentence for carrying a concealed firearm. He correctly contends that it was error for the trial court to assess eighteen additional sentencing points for possessing a firearm where the underlying crime was carrying a concealed firearm. See White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla.1998). The State concedes error but contends that it is harmless error because Looney’s sentence, with a corrected score-sheet, would be unchanged. Although we agree with the State that the sentence Looney is now serving would not change, the scoresheet error could affect a subsequent sentence should Looney violate his probation. Accordingly, we remand with instructions to the trial court to correct the scoresheet.

Sentence affirmed; remanded with instructions to correct the scoresheet.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 321, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2161, 1999 WL 95031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/looney-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack