Poole v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Poole v. State

592 So. 2d 384, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 729, 1992 WL 16622

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 1992

DocketNo. 89-2808

StatusPublished

This text of 592 So. 2d 384 (Poole 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

Poole v. State, 592 So. 2d 384, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 729, 1992 WL 16622 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant, Vincent Poole, appeals his conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and sentence of twenty-two months in the Department of Corrections, followed by eighteen months on probation. He contends on appeal, among other things, that the sentence imposed is illegal because he was sentenced in the second grid when he should have been sentenced in the first grid, wherein the recommended and permitted range was any non-state prison sanction.

It appears that appellant waived preparation of a scoresheet and thus ordinarily might not be in a position to complain. However, the record demonstrates a good deal of confusion as to the proper grid and sentence; so much so that justice requires that the sentence be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to prepare a scoresheet and resentence appellant as required by law. We note that appellee concedes that this is an appropriate disposition of the problem.

Finding no other reversible error demonstrated by the additional points presented, we reverse the sentence and remand the cause for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant, Vincent Poole, appeals his conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and sentence of twenty-two months in the Department of Corrections, followed by eighteen months on probation. He contends on appeal, among other things, that the sentence imposed is illegal because he was sentenced in the second grid when he should have been sentenced in the first grid, wherein the recommended and permitted range was any non-state prison sanction.

It appears that appellant waived preparation of a scoresheet and thus ordinarily might not be in a position to complain. However, the record demonstrates a good deal of confusion as to the proper grid and sentence; so much so that justice requires that the sentence be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to prepare a scoresheet and resentence appellant as required by law. We note that appellee concedes that this is an appropriate disposition of the problem.

Finding no other reversible error demonstrated by the additional points presented, we reverse the sentence and remand the cause for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 384, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 729, 1992 WL 16622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poole-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.