Singleton v. State, 92-01611
| Decision Date | 04 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-01611,92-01611 |
| Citation | 620 So.2d 1038 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1385 Edward Allen SINGLETON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and A. Anne Owens, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Edward Allen Singleton has appealed from the sentence imposed upon him following convictions for two counts of sexual battery and four counts of lewd and lascivious acts on children under 16 years. The basis for his appeal is improper scoring of victim injury points. The record does not reflect that the victims suffered actual physical trauma and, therefore, according to Karchesky v. State, 591 So.2d 930 (Fla.1992), the victim injury points should not have been added. There may be support, however, for a conclusion that the molested boys suffered psychological trauma. Should the judge on remand make such a finding, he may use it as a ground for departure from the guidelines. See Karchesky.
There are also two points related to the scoring of victim injury that require comment. First, relying upon Perryman v. State, 608 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the state advances the contention that Singleton's attack upon the trial court's assessment of victim injury points is barred for lack of contemporaneous objection. We have rejected that view in Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also Linkous v. State, 618 So.2d 294 18 Fla.L.Weekly D1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (noted conflict with Perryman ). Second, the state argues that the amendment to section 921.001, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), 1 mandates affirmance because it went into effect on April 8, 1992--the date of Singleton's sentencing. One court has held that the amendment is to be applied prospectively, Morales v. State, 613 So.2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and we also subscribe to the view that the applicable rule is the one which existed at the time of the offense, not sentencing.
The reduction of Singleton's sentencing score by the number of victim injury points would result in a recommended range one cell lower. The permitted range would also be similarly lower--9 to 22 years rather than the 12 to 27 years upon which the court relied in imposing concurrent prison terms of 15 years on all counts, followed by 10 years of probation on the sexual battery counts. Even though Singleton's sentence is within the new permitted range, the scoresheet error in this case cannot be harmless because the court originally sentenced him to a term at the low end of the permitted range. See Boland v. State, 613 So.2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Bec...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Montague
...court that he assumed the scoresheet had been calculated correctly. 3 On appeal, the Second District, relying on Singleton v. State, 620 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), found that Montague's failure to raise a contemporaneous objection did not preclude the court's independent review of the a......
-
Montague v. State
...the failure to raise a contemporaneous objection does not preclude our independent review of this issue, e.g., Singleton v. State, 620 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), the practical effect has been to leave the record barren as to the trial court's basis for concluding that the victim suffere......
-
Thornton v. State, 95-04253
...given the same sentence had it known the correct score. Burrows v. State, 649 So.2d 902, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); See Singleton v. State, 620 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Deparvine v. State, 603 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA Additionally, Thornton points out that the scoresheet includes ninety-......
-
Mitchell v. State, 92-4098
...to Mitchell is not that in effect at the time of his resentencing, but rather at the time of his 1990 offense. Singleton v. State, 620 So.2d 1038, 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). As noted in Karchesky, effective July 1, 1987, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)7. provided that "victim injury shall be scored fo......