State v. Chenault

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Chenault

543 So. 2d 1314, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1341, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3062, 1989 WL 56313

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 1, 1989·No. No. 88-1531·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a guideline sentence. The state maintains the sentencing judge erred in failing to assess points against appellee because he committed the crime while in custody serving a sentence. Rule 3.701(d)(6) in conjunction with Rule 3.988(i) says that persons who are in custody serving a sentence and who then commit another crime shall have twenty-four points scored against them, thus increasing the sentence in many cases.

The crime appellee committed was escape, so “in custody serving a sentence” is an element of the crime of escape and thus was factored into the primary offense at conviction. Without his having been in custody he would not have committed this crime of escape.

Brown v. State, 502 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) is on point and says “[t]his construction of the rule is consistent with the notion that legal constraint is an essential element of the crime of escape and thus should not be used as a ground for enhancing the sentence to be imposed.” This logic is inescapable,

AFFIRMED,

COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a guideline sentence. The state maintains the sentencing judge erred in failing to assess points against appellee because he committed the crime while in custody serving a sentence. Rule 3.701(d)(6) in conjunction with Rule 3.988(i) says that persons who are in custody serving a sentence and who then commit another crime shall have twenty-four points scored against them, thus increasing the sentence in many cases.

The crime appellee committed was escape, so “in custody serving a sentence” is an element of the crime of escape and thus was factored into the primary offense at conviction. Without his having been in custody he would not have committed this crime of escape.

Brown v. State, 502 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) is on point and says “[t]his construction of the rule is consistent with the notion that legal constraint is an essential element of the crime of escape and thus should not be used as a ground for enhancing the sentence to be imposed.” This logic is inescapable,

AFFIRMED,

COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur.

State v. Chenault, 543 So. 2d 1314, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1341, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3062, 1989 WL 56313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

543 So. 2d 1314 (State v. Chenault) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related