Love v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 21, 1990

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-11-21

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1991

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“DO FLORIDA’S UNIFORM SENTENCING GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT LEGAL CONSTRAINT POINTS BE ASSESSED FOR EACH OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE UNDER LEGAL CONSTRAINT?”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Shiel v. State, 586 So. 2d 1055 - Love v. State

Relies on Flowers v. State · Walker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-11-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PETERSON, Judge.

¶1Phillip Love appeals his sentence alleging that the trial court improperly multiplied by two the thirty-six points shown on the Category 4 score sheet form for legal constraint. The trial court chose the multiplier of two since Love had committed two new offenses while he was on probation. We affirm. Flowers v. State, 567 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Walker v. State, 546 So.2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

¶2We acknowledge that in Flowersuse of the multiplier was certified to the supreme court as a question of great public importance, and we again certify the question:

DO FLORIDA’S UNIFORM SENTENCING GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT LEGAL CONSTRAINT POINTS BE ASSESSED FOR EACH OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE UNDER LEGAL CONSTRAINT?

¶3AFFIRMED.

COWART and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.