Lovelace v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lovelace v. State

709 So. 2d 582, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2962, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 846

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 1998

DocketNo. 96-04938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 709 So. 2d 582 (Lovelace 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

Lovelace v. State, 709 So. 2d 582, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2962, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 846 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

Sherman Lovelace has claimed on appeal that the trial court improperly used a drug trafficking multiplier in calculating his score-sheet. We reject that contention, finding no error in the use of a multiplier for trafficking in methamphetamine, a violation of section 893.135(1)(f)1, Florida Statutes (1995), a level 7 offense. A detailed examination of the scoresheet and the interlineated calculations reveals no error.

Lovelace has correctly contended that certain unpronounced nonstandard aspects of his probation order should be stricken. Accordingly, we strike those portions of conditions (8) and (20) requiring payment for testing for alcohol or drug treatment, as well as the alcohol prohibition of condition (18). Condition (6) must be modified to require the defendant to “work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as may be possible.” Bristol v. State, 667 So.2d 486, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (quoting Burke v. State, 642 So.2d 677, 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)).

PATTERSON and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

Sherman Lovelace has claimed on appeal that the trial court improperly used a drug trafficking multiplier in calculating his score-sheet. We reject that contention, finding no error in the use of a multiplier for trafficking in methamphetamine, a violation of section 893.135(1)(f)1, Florida Statutes (1995), a level 7 offense. A detailed examination of the scoresheet and the interlineated calculations reveals no error.

Lovelace has correctly contended that certain unpronounced nonstandard aspects of his probation order should be stricken. Accordingly, we strike those portions of conditions (8) and (20) requiring payment for testing for alcohol or drug treatment, as well as the alcohol prohibition of condition (18). Condition (6) must be modified to require the defendant to “work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as may be possible.” Bristol v. State, 667 So.2d 486, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (quoting Burke v. State, 642 So.2d 677, 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)).

PATTERSON and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

709 So. 2d 582, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2962, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovelace-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack