Scherwitz v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Scherwitz v. State

644 So. 2d 85, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 525, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1537, 1994 WL 556915

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1994

DocketNo. 82006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 644 So. 2d 85 (Scherwitz v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scherwitz v. State, 644 So. 2d 85, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 525, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1537, 1994 WL 556915 (Fla. 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Scherwitz v. State, 618 So.2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), because of conflict with Graham v. State, 559 So.2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), on the issue of whether in resentencing a defendant after revocation of probation or community control, a court has authority to revise a guidelines score-sheet to include prior convictions that were mistakenly omitted from the original through no fault of the defendant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

In Roberts v. State, 644 So.2d 81 (Fla.1994), this Court has rejected the rationale of Graham and resolved the issue in the instant case adversely to Scherwitz’s position. Therefore, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW and HARDING, JJ., and MeDONALD, Senior Justice, concur. KOGAN, J., dissents with an opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Scherwitz v. State, 618 So.2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), because of conflict with Graham v. State, 559 So.2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), on the issue of whether in resentencing a defendant after revocation of probation or community control, a court has authority to revise a guidelines score-sheet to include prior convictions that were mistakenly omitted from the original through no fault of the defendant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

In Roberts v. State, 644 So.2d 81 (Fla.1994), this Court has rejected the rationale of Graham and resolved the issue in the instant case adversely to Scherwitz’s position. Therefore, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW and HARDING, JJ., and MeDONALD, Senior Justice, concur. KOGAN, J., dissents with an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

644 So. 2d 85, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 525, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1537, 1994 WL 556915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scherwitz-v-state-fla-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack