History
  • No items yet
midpage
Vance v. State
565 So. 2d 915
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1990
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

We reject appellant’s constitutional attacks on the authority of Schmitt v. State, 563 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); and Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990).

We agree with appellant that he was improperly sentenced under a category 2 scoresheet rather than a category 9 score-sheet. Category 2 covers only sexual offenses prosecuted under chapters 794 and 800 and section 826.04, Florida Statutes. Those statutes are not involved herein. See Robertson v. State, 559 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) and Hutcheson v. State, 501 So.2d 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction but remand with directions for re-sentencing consistent herewith.

ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Vance v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Aug 29, 1990
Citation: 565 So. 2d 915
Docket Number: No. 89-2257
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.