White v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

White v. State

537 So. 2d 196, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 253, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 204, 1989 WL 3274

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1989

DocketNo. 87-1580

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 537 So. 2d 196 (White 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

White v. State, 537 So. 2d 196, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 253, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 204, 1989 WL 3274 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James White appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary and dealing in stolen property. We affirm the convictions, but agree that the trial court erroneously added ten points for “legal constraint” when calculating White’s guideline sentence.

The only apparent justification for the addition of these points stems from the fact that, prior to his arrest in the instant case, White once had failed to appear to answer a misdemeanor charge. Had he remained a fugitive from the county court, White would have been under “legal constraint” for purposes of guideline sentencing. Gemme v. State, 508 So.2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). However, the warrant issued in the misdemeanor case had been discharged prior to the date White was alleged to have committed the offenses now before us. Rule 3.701(d)(6), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically refers to legal status at the time of the offense. Since deletion of the ten points would result in a one-cell reduction of the guideline recommendation, White must be resentenced utilizing a corrected score-sheet.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James White appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary and dealing in stolen property. We affirm the convictions, but agree that the trial court erroneously added ten points for “legal constraint” when calculating White’s guideline sentence.

The only apparent justification for the addition of these points stems from the fact that, prior to his arrest in the instant case, White once had failed to appear to answer a misdemeanor charge. Had he remained a fugitive from the county court, White would have been under “legal constraint” for purposes of guideline sentencing. Gemme v. State, 508 So.2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). However, the warrant issued in the misdemeanor case had been discharged prior to the date White was alleged to have committed the offenses now before us. Rule 3.701(d)(6), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically refers to legal status at the time of the offense. Since deletion of the ten points would result in a one-cell reduction of the guideline recommendation, White must be resentenced utilizing a corrected score-sheet.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 So. 2d 196, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 253, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 204, 1989 WL 3274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack