Norman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Norman v. State

764 So. 2d 738, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8130, 2000 WL 868432

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 2000

DocketNo. 2D97-3090

StatusPublished

This text of 764 So. 2d 738 (Norman 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

Norman v. State, 764 So. 2d 738, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8130, 2000 WL 868432 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Michael Norman appeals sentences imposed after a guilty plea on June 13, 1997, for the offenses of armed burglary, burglary of a dwelling (with no firearm), and grand theft, all of which occurred on September 6, 1996. He raises three issues, all of which have merit. He preserved these issues by filing a pro se motion in the trial court that comported with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3 .800.

First, because Mr. Norman was sentenced under the 1995 sentencing guidelines, we remand this ease to the trial judge to reconsider his sentence. See Smith v. State, 761 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

On remand, the trial judge should correct the appropriate guidelines scoresheet to delete the 18 points that were scored for use of a firearm. The enhancement points were applicable only to the theft of a firearm charge, because the use of a firearm was an essential element of Mr. Norman’s armed burglary charge and the other burglary of a dwelling was not committed with a firearm. As to theft of a firearm, the Florida Supreme Court has held that the 18-point enhancement is improper when the offense, as in this case, is specifically predicated upon acquisition of the firearm rather than its use. See White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla.1998).

Finally, on remand the trial judge should correct the order of probation by striking condition (8) requiring Mr. Norman to pay for drug and alcohol treatment and by qualifying condition (6) to require that he maintain employment “insofar as may be possible.” See Weekfall v. State, 686 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Curry v. State, 682 So.2d 1091 (Fla.1996).

Remanded for reconsideration of sentence and correction of order of probation.

BLUE, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.

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

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Michael Norman appeals sentences imposed after a guilty plea on June 13, 1997, for the offenses of armed burglary, burglary of a dwelling (with no firearm), and grand theft, all of which occurred on September 6, 1996. He raises three issues, all of which have merit. He preserved these issues by filing a pro se motion in the trial court that comported with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3 .800.

First, because Mr. Norman was sentenced under the 1995 sentencing guidelines, we remand this ease to the trial judge to reconsider his sentence. See Smith v. State, 761 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

On remand, the trial judge should correct the appropriate guidelines scoresheet to delete the 18 points that were scored for use of a firearm. The enhancement points were applicable only to the theft of a firearm charge, because the use of a firearm was an essential element of Mr. Norman’s armed burglary charge and the other burglary of a dwelling was not committed with a firearm. As to theft of a firearm, the Florida Supreme Court has held that the 18-point enhancement is improper when the offense, as in this case, is specifically predicated upon acquisition of the firearm rather than its use. See White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla.1998).

Finally, on remand the trial judge should correct the order of probation by striking condition (8) requiring Mr. Norman to pay for drug and alcohol treatment and by qualifying condition (6) to require that he maintain employment “insofar as may be possible.” See Weekfall v. State, 686 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Curry v. State, 682 So.2d 1091 (Fla.1996).

Remanded for reconsideration of sentence and correction of order of probation.

BLUE, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 So. 2d 738, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8130, 2000 WL 868432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack