Benedict v. State, 84-1814
| Decision Date | 19 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1814,84-1814 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2167,475 So.2d 1000 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2167 Scott Alan BENEDICT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lucinda H. Young, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Margene A. Roper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Benedict appeals from a guidelines sentence for the offense of leaving the scene of an accident with injuries, contending that the trial court erred in assessing points for victim injury.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(7) provides that victim injury shall be scored if it is an element of any offenses at conviction. The committee note explains that:
This provision implements the intention of the commission that points for victim injuries be added only when the defendant is convicted of an offense (scored as either primary or additional offense) which includes physical impact or contact. Victim injury is to be scored for each victim for whom the defendant is convicted of injuring and is limited to physical trauma.
In the present case, Benedict was convicted of violating sections 316.027 and 316.062, Florida Statutes, which require the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to stop and render aid and to furnish certain information upon request. In Motyka v. State, 457 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), a case virtually identical to the present case, the court concluded that victim injury is not an element of leaving the scene of an accident (section 316.027) in the sense that one must injure or kill someone to be guilty of the offense. 1 Likewise, we conclude that victim injury is not an element of section 316.062. Accordingly, points for victim injury should not have been scored. See Motyka. See also Hendry v. State, 460 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) () Since points were erroneously scored for victim injury, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COWART, J., concurs specially with opinion.
This special concurrence is to note, as did the court in Hendry v. State, 460 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), that because some aggravating sentencing factor is not, or cannot be, considered in a guidelines scoresheet calculation constitutes the very reason that factor may be properly considered by the trial court as a possible "clear and convincing"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims v. State, No. 5D02-2401
...107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Mr Sims also relies on two cases, Motyka v. State, 457 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Benedict v. State, 475 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), for the proposition that Rule 3.701(d)(7) only permits victim injury points to be scored if victim injury is an element ......
-
Holloman v. State, 85-259
...element of either the primary or an additional scored offense. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(7) and its committee note; Benedict v. State, 475 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Brown v. State, 474 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Parker v. State, 478 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Whitfield v. Stat......
-
Thornton v. State, 95-04253
...offense. Byrd v. State, 531 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); See Hendsbee v. State, 497 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Benedict v. State, 475 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). However, the court found the error to be harmless. The trial court is When Thornton's score is reduced by forty-eight p......
-
Martinez v. State, 96-165
...offense. Byrd v. State, 531 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); see Hendsbee v. State, 497 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Benedict v. State, 475 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). 683 So.2d at 516. To begin with, the Thornton decision analyzes the pre-1994 version of the guidelines. The question of......