State v. Howard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Howard

854 So. 2d 696, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11410, 2003 WL 21749044

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 30, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-4154

StatusPublished

This text of 854 So. 2d 696 (State v. Howard) 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

State v. Howard, 854 So. 2d 696, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11410, 2003 WL 21749044 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After violating the terms of his probation, Ivory Howard appeared before the trial court for sentencing for eight sepa[697]*697rate offenses. The 1994 guidelines were applicable to the offenses committed before May 24,1997, identified as counts one, three, seven, and eight of the information. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924, 928 (Fla.2000) (determining that window period for challenging sentences imposed under 1995 guidelines held unconstitutional in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), closed on May 24, 1997). The balance of the offenses, counts two, four, five, and six, were committed in July 1997, and the 1995 guidelines were applicable to them. See Trapp, 760 So.2d at 928 (explaining that defendants do not have standing to challenge the 1995 guidelines as unconstitutional after the close of the Heggs window period).

Over the State’s objection, the trial court used a single 1994 scoresheet to calculate Howard’s guidelines sentence for all eight offenses. The trial court was required to use a separate 1995 scoresheet for the four offenses committed in July 1997. Accordingly, we affirm the order revoking probation but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing on all offenses using separate scoresheets. See § 921.0014(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(3).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and FULMER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

After violating the terms of his probation, Ivory Howard appeared before the trial court for sentencing for eight sepa[697]*697rate offenses. The 1994 guidelines were applicable to the offenses committed before May 24,1997, identified as counts one, three, seven, and eight of the information. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924, 928 (Fla.2000) (determining that window period for challenging sentences imposed under 1995 guidelines held unconstitutional in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), closed on May 24, 1997). The balance of the offenses, counts two, four, five, and six, were committed in July 1997, and the 1995 guidelines were applicable to them. See Trapp, 760 So.2d at 928 (explaining that defendants do not have standing to challenge the 1995 guidelines as unconstitutional after the close of the Heggs window period).

Over the State’s objection, the trial court used a single 1994 scoresheet to calculate Howard’s guidelines sentence for all eight offenses. The trial court was required to use a separate 1995 scoresheet for the four offenses committed in July 1997. Accordingly, we affirm the order revoking probation but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing on all offenses using separate scoresheets. See § 921.0014(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(3).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and FULMER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

854 So. 2d 696, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11410, 2003 WL 21749044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-howard-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack