Thornton v. State, 95-3355
| Citation | 679 So.2d 871 |
| Decision Date | 18 September 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-3355,95-3355 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2056 Michael THORNTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee; and Patricia Ann Ash, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant, Michael Thornton, appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence on the charges of fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, in violation of section 316.1935, Florida Statutes, and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, in violation of sections 784.021 and 784.07, Florida Statutes.
After pleading nolo contendere to the above charges, appellant moved to withdraw his plea at sentencing, which the trial court denied. We affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to withdraw his plea, but remand for resentencing based on the second issue raised by appellant in this appeal.
The trial court in sentencing appellant, used a law enforcement multiplier in computing appellant's scoresheet. The authority for using a law enforcement multiplier is found in rule 3.702(d)(14), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (1995), which provides as follows:
If the primary offense is drug trafficking under section 893.135, the subtotal sentence points may be multiplied, at the discretion of the sentencing court, by a factor of 1.5. If the primary offense is a violation of the Law Enforcement Protection Act under subsections 775.0823(2), (3), (4), or (5), the subtotal sentence points shall be multiplied by a factor of 2. If the primary offense is a violation of subsection 775.087(2)(a)(2) or subsections 775.0823(6) or (7), the subtotal sentence points shall be multiplied by a factor of 1.5. If both enhancements are applicable, only the enhancement with the higher multiplier is to be used.
Appellant was not charged with any violation under section 775.087 or 775.0823, nor was he charged under 893.135; therefore, he could not have been sentenced using a law enforcement multiplier. The charges against appellant, as contained in the Information, were based on sections 784.07 and 784.021, and do not fit within the enhancement section of rule 3.702(d)(14).
We therefore vacate appellant's sentence and remand with directions to correct the guidelines scoresheet and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jordan v. State
...775.0823 was not cited in the information, it follows that the law enforcement multiplier must be stricken. See Thornton v. State, 679 So.2d 871, 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).1 The charging document alleged that defendant committed attempted first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, with......
-
Price v. State
...properly concedes, the 1.5 law enforcement protection multiplier was erroneously applied to appellant's sentence. See Thornton v. State, 679 So.2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).1 Additionally, appellant's sentence must be remanded for reconsideration in accordance with Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 6......
-
Matthews v. State
...of section 775.0823, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). See Watson v. State, 749 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (citing Thornton v. State, 679 So.2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). We conclude that the outcome in Thornton was based on the sentencing rules applicable at the time of the offense in that ca......
-
Watson v. State, 2D98-3711.
...the defendant with a violation of section 775.0823, the defendant cannot be sentenced pursuant to its provisions. See Thornton v. State, 679 So.2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Therefore, upon remand, Watson's sentencing scoresheet must be calculated without applying the law enforcement Reversed......