Newsome v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Newsome v. State

539 So. 2d 620, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 769, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1511, 1989 WL 25433

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 1989

DocketNo. 88-274

StatusPublished

This text of 539 So. 2d 620 (Newsome 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

Newsome v. State, 539 So. 2d 620, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 769, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1511, 1989 WL 25433 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Newsome appeals his judgment and sentences for the offenses of burglary and grand theft. We affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences.

We find no merit in Newsome’s argument that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the burglary and grand theft counts. The state, however, concedes that the trial judge incorrectly scored seven points for an additional offense at conviction instead of three points. This court may review the error even though there was no contemporaneous objection, because the error is apparent and determinable from the record on appeal. See Bradley v. State, 480 So.2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), cause dismissed, 486 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1986).

Because the improper scoring of New-some’s offenses resulted in a guidelines score that placed Newsome in a higher sentencing range, we reverse the sentences. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court to resentence Newsome utilizing a corrected scoresheet and without prejudice to the trial judge’s ability to impose a departure sentence based upon proper written reasons. See Jackson v. State, 534 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Newsome appeals his judgment and sentences for the offenses of burglary and grand theft. We affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences.

We find no merit in Newsome’s argument that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the burglary and grand theft counts. The state, however, concedes that the trial judge incorrectly scored seven points for an additional offense at conviction instead of three points. This court may review the error even though there was no contemporaneous objection, because the error is apparent and determinable from the record on appeal. See Bradley v. State, 480 So.2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), cause dismissed, 486 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1986).

Because the improper scoring of New-some’s offenses resulted in a guidelines score that placed Newsome in a higher sentencing range, we reverse the sentences. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court to resentence Newsome utilizing a corrected scoresheet and without prejudice to the trial judge’s ability to impose a departure sentence based upon proper written reasons. See Jackson v. State, 534 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 So. 2d 620, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 769, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1511, 1989 WL 25433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newsome-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack