Narrative Opinion Summary
The court reviewed the appellant's argument regarding sentencing errors in Case Numbers 93-2915 and 94-1338, specifically the claim that the trial court improperly used separate guidelines score-sheets for each offense. The court found this argument to be without merit, referencing case law (Wood v. State and Heath v. State) that supports the use of different score-sheets for offenses committed in different years. However, the court noted that the 1994 score-sheet did not meet the comprehensiveness required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(1). Consequently, the court reversed the sentence for Case Number 94-1338 and remanded the case for correction of the score-sheet and re-sentencing. The decision was concurred by Chief Judge Peterson and Judge Sharp.
Legal Issues Addressed
Compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the 1994 score-sheet did not comply with the comprehensiveness required by the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, necessitating correction and re-sentencing.
Reasoning: However, the court noted that the 1994 score-sheet did not meet the comprehensiveness required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(1). Consequently, the court reversed the sentence for Case Number 94-1338 and remanded the case for correction of the score-sheet and re-sentencing.
Use of Separate Guidelines Score-Sheetssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed the appellant's argument concerning the improper use of separate guidelines score-sheets for each offense, finding it without merit and supported by case law.
Reasoning: The court found this argument to be without merit, referencing case law (Wood v. State and Heath v. State) that supports the use of different score-sheets for offenses committed in different years.