Lifhred v. State, 598 So. 2d 335

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction and find only one error in the sentence, appellant having contended 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.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Lifhred v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Jun 3, 1992

Citations: 598 So. 2d 335; 1992 WL 115802; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6432; No. 90-1705

Docket Number: No. 90-1705

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.