Armontrout v. State, 86-893
| Decision Date | 12 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-893,86-893 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 757 Roger Frank ARMONTROUT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancye R. Crouch, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kevin Kitpatrick Carson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Roger Armontrout appeals a judgment of guilt and the sentence for grand theft in the second degree in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1985), imposed after jury trial.
As to the judgment of guilt, we find no error and affirm, but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. At sentencing, Armontrout alleged that three errors existed in the scoresheet. First, a California offense was scored as a felony when it was actually a misdemeanor; second, he was not convicted for a misdemeanor offense of "burning things not subject to arson"; and third, he never went to court on another misdemeanor charge for assault. If error occurred on any one of these three issues, then Armontrout's sentence would fall within the next lower range. The state requested an opportunity to prove the prior convictions that were contested, however, the trial court took it upon itself to refute defendant's allegations and ruled that if it erred in sentencing then Armontrout would not be resentenced after appeal because he would automatically receive a four and one-half year sentence.
This court has repeatedly held that when the defendant disputes the truth of specifically identified statements in a presentence investigation report the trial court must require that the state corroborate those statements. Morris v. State, 483 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Robbins v. State, 482 So.2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So.2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Armontrout contends that he never went to court on the assault charge, however, the presentence investigation clearly shows that he was adjudicated guilty of disorderly conduct which is also a misdemeanor. On the second point, Armontrout asserted that he had never been convicted of the "burning things not subject to arson" charge. The state admits that it cannot dispute the assertion relating to this charge and states that if reversal is required then they should have an opportunity to corroborate the presentence investigation allegation. The third issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forehand v. State, BT-110
...DCA 1988); Samples v. State, 516 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Frazier v. State, 515 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Armontrout v. State, 503 So.2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Noland v. State, 489 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Robbins v. State, 482 So.2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Rodriguez v. S......
-
Bailey v. State
...the out-of-state offense. Forehand v. State, 524 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), approved, 537 So.2d 103 (Fla.1989); Armontrout v. State, 503 So.2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We note that there is no record objection to the scoring of the New York offense as a felony; thus, the state was not ......
-
Rotz v. State, 87-460
...law or rescoring as a third rather than second degree felony to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. See Armontrout v. State, 503 So.2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Robbins v. State, 482 So.2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); and Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So.2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Assumin......
-
Jones v. State, 86-1763
...remand for resentencing where either proof is given to substantiate the departure or a guideline sentence imposed. Armontrout v. State, 503 So.2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We uphold the court's reason for departure regarding the timing of the offenses, Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392, 393 (......