574 So. 2d 1231
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided February 28, 1991
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1991-02-28
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1991
1 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 1 later decision, including 586 So. 2d 339 - Banegas v. State
Relies on Flowers v. State · 558 So. 2d 519 - Barton-Malow Co. v. Gorman Co. of Ocala, Inc.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1991-02-28
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1We affirm the order of probation imposed by the lower court and direct the court to hold a hearing on restitution on appellant’s motion. See A.P. v. State, 558 So.2d 519 (Fla.1990).
¶2As in Flowers v. State, 567 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), we certify to the supreme court the following question:
DO FLORIDA’S UNIFORM SENTENCING GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT LEGAL CONSTRAINT POINTS BE ASSESSED FOR EACH OFFENSE COM*1232MITTED WHILE UNDER LEGAL CONSTRAINT?