Regan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Regan v. State

576 So. 2d 1385, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3064, 1991 WL 50142

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2277

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 1385 (Regan 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

Regan v. State, 576 So. 2d 1385, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3064, 1991 WL 50142 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled no contest and was sentenced on six charges including one sentence imposed after revocation of probation. He raises three points with respect to his sentences. First, he claims that the trial court erred in assessing points for legal constraint for each of the five new substantive offenses for which he was sentenced. Carter v. State, 571 So.2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) holds this is not error, although we note that the question has been certified to the Supreme Court in Flowers v. State, 567 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We certify the same question in this case.

Appellant next claims error in the scoring of a New York conviction. However, we conclude that error, if any, was not properly preserved. Forehand v. State, 537 So.2d 103 (Fla.1989).

Finally, appellant claims that the trial court erred in sentencing him in case no. 89-980, after probation revocation, to a term in excess of the one cell “bump up” from the original guidelines range allowed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14). We agree based on Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989); and True v. State, 564 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We therefore remand to the trial court for resentencing of appellant in case no. 89-980 to a term not to exceed the one-cell “bump up” of 3 and V2 years.

Reverse and remand.

LETTS, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled no contest and was sentenced on six charges including one sentence imposed after revocation of probation. He raises three points with respect to his sentences. First, he claims that the trial court erred in assessing points for legal constraint for each of the five new substantive offenses for which he was sentenced. Carter v. State, 571 So.2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) holds this is not error, although we note that the question has been certified to the Supreme Court in Flowers v. State, 567 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We certify the same question in this case.

Appellant next claims error in the scoring of a New York conviction. However, we conclude that error, if any, was not properly preserved. Forehand v. State, 537 So.2d 103 (Fla.1989).

Finally, appellant claims that the trial court erred in sentencing him in case no. 89-980, after probation revocation, to a term in excess of the one cell “bump up” from the original guidelines range allowed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14). We agree based on Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989); and True v. State, 564 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We therefore remand to the trial court for resentencing of appellant in case no. 89-980 to a term not to exceed the one-cell “bump up” of 3 and V2 years.

Reverse and remand.

LETTS, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 1385, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3064, 1991 WL 50142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regan-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack