Marshalek v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marshalek v. State

536 So. 2d 1072, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4887, 1988 WL 117543

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1914

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 536 So. 2d 1072 (Marshalek 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

Marshalek v. State, 536 So. 2d 1072, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4887, 1988 WL 117543 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statements as involuntary and the record contains sufficient evidence to support appellant’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions.

However, the trial court erred when it scored thirty points on appellant’s guidelines scoresheet for his being under legal constraint at the time of the subject offenses. The court based the additional thirty point score upon two outstanding warrants for appellant’s failure to appear on two traffic charges. At the sentencing hearing, appellant introduced copies of county court orders subsequently recalling the warrants because appellant did not receive notice of the hearings. We hold that [1073]*1073the trial court should not have assessed appellant with points for being under legal constraint when appellant had no notice of the outstanding warrants. Therefore we reverse the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand this cause with instructions to compute appellant’s guidelines scoresheet without the inclusion of points for legal constraint and to resentenee appellant within the applicable guidelines range.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

LETTS, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statements as involuntary and the record contains sufficient evidence to support appellant’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions.

However, the trial court erred when it scored thirty points on appellant’s guidelines scoresheet for his being under legal constraint at the time of the subject offenses. The court based the additional thirty point score upon two outstanding warrants for appellant’s failure to appear on two traffic charges. At the sentencing hearing, appellant introduced copies of county court orders subsequently recalling the warrants because appellant did not receive notice of the hearings. We hold that [1073]*1073the trial court should not have assessed appellant with points for being under legal constraint when appellant had no notice of the outstanding warrants. Therefore we reverse the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand this cause with instructions to compute appellant’s guidelines scoresheet without the inclusion of points for legal constraint and to resentenee appellant within the applicable guidelines range.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

LETTS, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

536 So. 2d 1072, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4887, 1988 WL 117543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshalek-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack