Lovelace v. State, 709 So. 2d 582

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

Sherman Lovelace has claimed on appeal that the trial court improperly used a ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍drug trafficking multiplier in calculating his score-sheet. We reject that contention, finding no error in the use of a multiplier for trafficking in methamphetamine, a violation of section 893.135(1)(f)1, Florida ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍Statutes (1995), a level 7 offense. A detailed examination of the scoresheet and the interlineated calculations reveals no error.

Lovelace has correctly contended that certain unpronounced nonstandard aspects of his probation ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍order should be stricken. Accordingly, we strike those portions of conditions (8) and (20) requiring payment for testing for alcohol or drug treatment, as well as the alcohol prohibition of ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍condition (18). Condition (6) must be modified to require the defendant to “work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as may be possible.” Bristol v. State, 667 So.2d 486, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍1996) (quoting Burke v. State, 642 So.2d 677, 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)).

PATTERSON and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Lovelace v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Mar 27, 1998

Citations: 709 So. 2d 582; 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 846; 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2962; No. 96-04938

Docket Number: No. 96-04938

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.