Mills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mills v. State

690 So. 2d 735, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3134

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 2, 1997

DocketNos. 94-3554, 95-1741

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 690 So. 2d 735 (Mills 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

Mills v. State, 690 So. 2d 735, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3134 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing under a corrected scoresheet.

It was error to score 21 points for being under legal constraint as there is no testimony or written evidence before the court that Appellant was under any type of constraint at the time of the offense. Brown v. State, 632 So.2d 1052, 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). See also Schott v. State, 641 So.2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Blanton v. State, 546 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

It was also error to score points for two juvenile felony commitments that show on their face that Appellant was not represented by counsel. As to one, there was no attorney and no evidence of a waiver. As to the other, there also was no attorney and a purported waiver was deficient. The document was not a certified copy, and when Appellant objected, the state could not demonstrate that the signature was Appellant’s. See § 39.061, Fla.Stat. (1995); Dickerson v. State, 586 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Cooper v. State, 538 So.2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

GLICKSTEIN, STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing under a corrected scoresheet.

It was error to score 21 points for being under legal constraint as there is no testimony or written evidence before the court that Appellant was under any type of constraint at the time of the offense. Brown v. State, 632 So.2d 1052, 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). See also Schott v. State, 641 So.2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Blanton v. State, 546 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

It was also error to score points for two juvenile felony commitments that show on their face that Appellant was not represented by counsel. As to one, there was no attorney and no evidence of a waiver. As to the other, there also was no attorney and a purported waiver was deficient. The document was not a certified copy, and when Appellant objected, the state could not demonstrate that the signature was Appellant’s. See § 39.061, Fla.Stat. (1995); Dickerson v. State, 586 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Cooper v. State, 538 So.2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

GLICKSTEIN, STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

690 So. 2d 735, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack