Rosier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosier v. State

864 So. 2d 1285, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1152, 2004 WL 221011

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 2004

DocketNo. 1D02-4780

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 864 So. 2d 1285 (Rosier 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

Rosier v. State, 864 So. 2d 1285, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1152, 2004 WL 221011 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Rosier (Appellant) was charged with one count of sale of a controlled substance (Count One) and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Count Two). The jury found him guilty of both charged offenses, and the trial court sen[1286]*1286tenced him to ten and five years’ incarceration, respectively, on Counts One and Two. Appellant contends that the trial court erred 1) in limiting the defense’s cross-examination of the State’s key witness and 2) in calculating the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet by including as “additional offenses” two offenses (which added 5.4 points total) that later were nolle prossed after Appellant was allowed to withdraw his plea regarding those offenses. Finding no abuse of discretion in the limiting of cross-examination, we affirm the convictions. See Lukehart v. State, 776 So.2d 906 (Fla.2000); Moore v. State, 701 So.2d 545, 549 (Fla.1997). As to the sentencing scoresheet issue, we rely on the reasoning in Romero v. State, 805 So.2d 92, 93-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (Altenbernd, J., concurring with opinion), and affirm the sentences because the sentences actually imposed could have been imposed under a corrected scoresheet (without a departure). See Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620, 627 (Fla.2000); Sain v. State, 824 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Appellant’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ. concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Rosier (Appellant) was charged with one count of sale of a controlled substance (Count One) and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Count Two). The jury found him guilty of both charged offenses, and the trial court sen[1286]*1286tenced him to ten and five years’ incarceration, respectively, on Counts One and Two. Appellant contends that the trial court erred 1) in limiting the defense’s cross-examination of the State’s key witness and 2) in calculating the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet by including as “additional offenses” two offenses (which added 5.4 points total) that later were nolle prossed after Appellant was allowed to withdraw his plea regarding those offenses. Finding no abuse of discretion in the limiting of cross-examination, we affirm the convictions. See Lukehart v. State, 776 So.2d 906 (Fla.2000); Moore v. State, 701 So.2d 545, 549 (Fla.1997). As to the sentencing scoresheet issue, we rely on the reasoning in Romero v. State, 805 So.2d 92, 93-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (Altenbernd, J., concurring with opinion), and affirm the sentences because the sentences actually imposed could have been imposed under a corrected scoresheet (without a departure). See Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620, 627 (Fla.2000); Sain v. State, 824 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Appellant’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

864 So. 2d 1285, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 1152, 2004 WL 221011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosier-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack