Kingsley v. State
| Decision Date | 01 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-987,96-987 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2355 James KINGSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
James Kingsley appeals the final judgment and sentence entered following a violation of probation. We affirm Kingsley's conviction, but must reverse and remand for resentencing because a revised sentencing guidelines scoresheet reflecting 40 points for severe victim injury was utilized rather than the original scoresheet, which allotted only 4 points because victim injury had been determined to be slight.
We reject the State's argument that we should affirm based upon Roberts v. State, 644 So.2d 81 (Fla.1994). In Roberts, the supreme court determined that in resentencing a defendant after his or her probation has been revoked, a court is authorized to revise a guidelines scoresheet to include prior convictions that were mistakenly omitted from the original scoresheet through no fault of the defendant. See Roberts, 644 So.2d at 82. The court reasoned:
Now that ... [the defendant] has committed a new crime and violated his probation, we see no reason to perpetuate the error. Justice is not served by awarding a defendant something to which he is not entitled.
Id. However, the fact that points were mistakenly omitted in Roberts distinguishes that case from the instant matter. Here, there was a determination at the original sentencing that the victim only suffered slight injury, and thus, Kingsley was awarded 4 points for that infraction. 1 Accordingly we reverse Kingsley's sentence and remand to the trial court for it to sentence Kingsley utilizing the original guidelines scoresheet. See Williams v. State, 678 So.2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (); compare King v. State, 648 So.2d 183, 191-92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) () (emphasis added) (Benton, J., concurring in part, dissenting in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trotter v. State
...explained that the Second District in Estrada based its decision in part on the Fifth District's earlier decision in Kingsley v. State, 682 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), which held that, "although points which were mistakenly omitted from a scoresheet can be added when sentencing for viola......
-
Aponte v. State
...assess victim injury points under these circumstances. Unlike the concurring opinion, we find that the decisions in Kingsley v. State, 682 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) and Estrada v. State, 787 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) are distinguishable from our holding in the instant case. In Kingsle......
-
Peralta v. Peralta Food, Corp.
... ... 2d DCA 1989). The settlement agreement's provisions, therefore, become binding on the parties and this Court. E.g., M & C Assocs. v. State of Fla. Dept. of Transp., 682 So.2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Consequently, this Court — no matter how sympathetic it is to Maximo's unfortunate ... ...
-
Trotter v. State
...this holding and certify conflict with Estrada. The Estrada case based its holding in part on this court's decision in Kingsley v. State, 682 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), which held that, although points which were mistakenly omitted from a scoresheet can be added when sentencing for viol......