You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Trotter v. State

Citations: 529 So. 2d 344; 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1837; 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3523; 1988 WL 80126Docket: No. 87-1778

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 4, 1988; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Trotter appeals his sentencing, claiming the guidelines scoresheet was incorrectly calculated. The court agrees, noting that the burglary conviction was improperly classified as a second degree felony when it should have been categorized as a third degree felony. This misclassification resulted in an inaccurate maximum guidelines sentence of 4.5 years instead of the correct 8 years. The court reverses the sentence and remands the case for resentencing. Judges Ervin, Joanos, and Nimmons concur with the decision, dismissing the state’s counter-argument as frivolous.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Court's Authority to Reverse and Remand for Resentencing

Application: Upon finding the sentencing error, the appellate court reversed the original sentence and remanded the case for a proper resentencing.

Reasoning: The court reverses the sentence and remands the case for resentencing.

Correction of Sentencing Guidelines Scoresheet

Application: The misclassification of the offense degree led to an erroneous calculation of the sentencing guidelines, necessitating a correction and resentencing.

Reasoning: This misclassification resulted in an inaccurate maximum guidelines sentence of 4.5 years instead of the correct 8 years.

Judicial Concurrence in Appellate Decisions

Application: All judges involved concurred with the decision to correct the sentencing error and dismiss the opposing argument.

Reasoning: Judges Ervin, Joanos, and Nimmons concur with the decision, dismissing the state’s counter-argument as frivolous.

Misclassification of Offense Degree in Sentencing

Application: The court found that the burglary conviction was incorrectly classified, affecting the sentencing guidelines and resulting in an inaccurate sentence.

Reasoning: The court agrees, noting that the burglary conviction was improperly classified as a second degree felony when it should have been categorized as a third degree felony.