Gemme v. State, 86-1211
| Decision Date | 12 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1211,86-1211 |
| Citation | 508 So.2d 533,12 Fla. L. Weekly 1476 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1476 Emmet Richard GEMME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and W.H. Pasch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Erica M. Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from his sentence for failure to redeliver a hired vehicle. We remand for correction of the sentence but otherwise affirm.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in adding points on the guidelines scoresheet for legal constraint. His argument apparently is that although he had been named in an outstanding New York warrant, New York had not extradited him and the warrant was active only in New York. We disagree with his contention. Rule 3.701(d)(6), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, defines "Legal status at time of offense," which calls for additional scoresheet points, as including "fugitives who have ... failed to appear for a criminal judicial proceeding...." We conclude that the New York warrant to which defendant admittedly was subject caused defendant to come within that rule which draws no distinction between criminal judicial proceedings within and without this state.
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in imposing restitution. However, defendant did not object to restitution and, therefore, failed to preserve that issue for appeal. See Williams v. State, 507 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Bostic v. State, 504 So.2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Hussey v. State, 504 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Pettway v. State, 502 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Spivey v. State, 501 So.2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in imposing a fine. We disagree. A fine was permitted under section 775.083(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). The error in specifying defendant's fine in the judgment, rather than in the sentence, should be corrected on remand by the trial judge, and we so direct. Defendant need not be present for this purpose.
This case is otherwise affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant v. State, 87-2732
...to come within this rule, thus justifying the addition of the 21 points which elevated his guideline sentence range. See Gemme v. State, 508 So.2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (defendant subject to New York warrant fell within the definition of legal status causing added scoresheet ...
-
Wilson v. State, 86-2485
...failure to object to restitution when orally pronounced by the trial court precludes our review of that issue. Gemme v. State, 508 So.2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Hussey v. State, 504 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA We affirm the conviction and the order of restitution. We reverse and strike the impos......
-
Ferris v. State, 89-01195
...did not object to restitution, he specifically consented to it and, therefore, failed to preserve that issue for appeal. Gemme v. State, 508 So.2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We find that appellant's remaining points on appeal have no Accordingly, we reverse for resentencing so that appellant's......
-
White v. State, 87-1580
...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 commit......