Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

672 So. 2d 637

Chapman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1996-04-26

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1999

1 state decisions

Relies on 608 So. 2d 93 - Ricardo v. State · Watson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-04-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DAUKSCH, Judge.

¶1This is an appeal from a sentence. The state has conceded that it was improper for the grand theft to be an “additional offense” under the sentencing guidelines’ confusing scheme. The grand theft should be the “primary offense” so that the court can legally habitualize the appellant on the burglary conviction and thus maximize the penalty, as the judge wanted to do and should do. Watson v. State, 658 So.2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Ricardo v. State, 608 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The scoresheet should be redone and sentencing must be redone. On remand the court cannot depart for the reason that there is a pattern of escalating criminal behavior. The behavior was a continuing pattern but not escalating.

¶2SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.

GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
/672/so2d/637 · .json · Public domain