¶1We affirm the conviction and find only one error in the sentence, appellant having *336contended three to exist. Appellant correctly asserts that the trial court erred in multiplying the legal constraint factor on appellant’s scoresheet by four, once for each offense at conviction. The supreme court recently disapproved of using a multiplier for calculating legal constraint points. Flowers v. State, 586 So.2d 1058, 1060 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand with direction to resen-tence in compliance with Flowers.
598 So. 2d 335
Lifhred v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided June 3, 1992
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-06-03
Relies on 586 So. 2d 1058 - Flowers v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1992-06-03
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 2010
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →