Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

717 So. 2d 519

717 So.2d 519

23 Fla.L.WeeklySupp. 403

Vela v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 16, 1998

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1998-07-16

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1999

2 state decisions

Relies on 714 So. 2d 440 - White v. State · Galloway v. State · State v. Hanks

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-07-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We have for review the decision in State v. Vela, 700 So.2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), which the district court certified to be in conflict with the opinion in Galloway v. State, 680 So.2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), concerning the issue of whether additional sentencing points for carrying or possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime may be added to a defendant’s sentencing score where the defendant is convicted of carrying a concealed weapon or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

¶2Recently, we resolved this conflict in White v. State, 714 So.2d 440, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S 311 (Fla.1998), wherein we held that it is error for a trial court to assess additional sentencing points for possessing a firearm where the sole underlying crime is carrying a concealed firearm or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In other words, we held that rule 3.702(d)(12) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and section 921.0014, Florida Statutes (1993), do not contemplate the addition of sentencing points for carrying or possessing a firearm where the carrying or possession of a firearm is the essential element of the underlying offense. In so holding, we approved the Fourth District’s opinion in Galloway.

¶3In this ease, defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and resisting an officer without violence. We are unable to ascertain from the record and opinion below, however, whether the defendant possessed a firearm during the commission of the additional offense for resisting an officer. Therefore, we remand for further proceedings in accordance with our decision in White.

¶4It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and ANSTEAD, JJ„ concur.WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion.
/717/so2d/519 · .json · Public domain