Orange v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Orange v. State

539 So. 2d 33, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 634, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1242, 1989 WL 19565

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1166

StatusPublished

This text of 539 So. 2d 33 (Orange 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

Orange v. State, 539 So. 2d 33, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 634, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1242, 1989 WL 19565 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Appellant’s convictions for two counts of lewd, lascivious or indecent assault on a child under the age of 16 are supported by the evidence. The transcript of the sentencing hearing indicates that appellant was sentenced for this primary offense, as well as an additional unrelated offense, grand theft of a motor vehicle, a third degree felony (Case No. 86-187). However, the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, while scoring appellant 25 points for the third degree felony, fails to reflect the Srand theft as the additional case or give its case number (Case No. 86-187) in the appropriate box at the top of the score-sheet The scoresheet should be corrected to make ⅛ clear that aPPellant was beinS sentenced for the additional offense of £rand theft of a motor vehicle as well as the V^mary offense-the two counts of lewd> lascivious or indecent assault on a child under the aSe of 16-

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Appellant’s convictions for two counts of lewd, lascivious or indecent assault on a child under the age of 16 are supported by the evidence. The transcript of the sentencing hearing indicates that appellant was sentenced for this primary offense, as well as an additional unrelated offense, grand theft of a motor vehicle, a third degree felony (Case No. 86-187). However, the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, while scoring appellant 25 points for the third degree felony, fails to reflect the Srand theft as the additional case or give its case number (Case No. 86-187) in the appropriate box at the top of the score-sheet The scoresheet should be corrected to make ⅛ clear that aPPellant was beinS sentenced for the additional offense of £rand theft of a motor vehicle as well as the V^mary offense-the two counts of lewd> lascivious or indecent assault on a child under the aSe of 16-

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 So. 2d 33, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 634, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1242, 1989 WL 19565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orange-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.