Teehan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Teehan v. State

488 So. 2d 132, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1057, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7692

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 1986

DocketNo. 84-842

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 488 So. 2d 132 (Teehan 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

Teehan v. State, 488 So. 2d 132, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1057, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7692 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer. The trial judge increased the points under the guidelines and aggravated the sentence of the appellant to five years and thereby departed from the guidelines. His reasons for departure were punishment and deterrence.

We reverse and remand for resen-tencing. It was error to score additional points for victim injury when there was no evidence of same and it was not an essential element of the crime. Holloman v. State, 482 So.2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Inscore v. State, 480 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Whitfield v. State, 471 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). It was also error to aggravate the sentence for the reasons pronounced. Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985); Cawthon v. State, 486 So.2d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Patty v. State, 486 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Battles v. State, 482 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Therefore the sentence under review is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court for resentencing.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer. The trial judge increased the points under the guidelines and aggravated the sentence of the appellant to five years and thereby departed from the guidelines. His reasons for departure were punishment and deterrence.

We reverse and remand for resen-tencing. It was error to score additional points for victim injury when there was no evidence of same and it was not an essential element of the crime. Holloman v. State, 482 So.2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Inscore v. State, 480 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Whitfield v. State, 471 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). It was also error to aggravate the sentence for the reasons pronounced. Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985); Cawthon v. State, 486 So.2d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Patty v. State, 486 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Battles v. State, 482 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Therefore the sentence under review is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court for resentencing.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 So. 2d 132, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1057, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teehan-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack