THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EROL VURAL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appealed a sentence imposed on remand after this court previously reversed for resentencing due to improper victim injury points. The trial court on remand improperly reduced the sentence below the original. This court reversed, holding that remand for additional guideline points could not authorize sentence reduction and directing proper resentencing.
The trial court's remanded sentence was improper and reversed. The remand for assessing additional victim injury points did not authorize sentence reduction; the trial court could impose the same original sentence or a greater sentence, but not a lower one. The case was again remanded for proper resentencing.
[1] A trial court's sentence must comply with the directions given by an appellate court on remand.
[2] An appellate court's mandate requiring the assessment of additional victim injury points does not authorize a trial court to reduce a defendant's sentence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“However, nothing in this Court's original opinion, requiring the trial court to assess additional guideline points against the defendant, could be construed as a suggestion or authorization to reduce the defendant's original sentence.”
Establishes that the remand order did not permit sentence reduction, only potential increase or maintenance at original level
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVural was convicted of attempted sexual battery and simple battery involving improper sexual contact with a female client. In the first appeal, this c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Victim Injury Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the second time this case presents itself before this Court. See Vural v. State, 717 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). In the earlier appeal, the defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for attempted sexual battery and simple battery stemming from his improper “sexual contact” with a female client. The State cross-appealed contending that the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant by virtue of the fact that it failed to assess victim injury points against the defendant. This Court affirmed the conviction and, furthermore, agreed with the State’s contention and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a “proper sentence” that would take into account the additional victim injury points that should have been assessed against the defendant in the first place. See Vural, 717 So. 2d at 67. Despite the foregoing, the trial court, on remand, assessed the required victim injury points against the de fendant and then reduced the defendant’s sentence to a period of time in the county-jail followed by community control. The State now appeals this more recently entered sentence as not only being below that which would be permitted by the Sentencing Guidelines, but more importantly, one which contravenes the directions given to the trial court by this Court. We agree and reverse the most recently entered sentence and, again, remand this cause to the trial court for the purpose of having the trial court enter a proper sentence.
Naturally, assuming that the trial court complies with Sentencing Guideline regulations, it would have the discretion to enter the same sentence as it originally did (35 months in the State Prison) or, if it felt it appropriate to do so, the court could impose a greater sentence because of the additional victim injury points. However, nothing in this Court’s original opinion, requiring the trial court to assess additional guideline points against the defendant, could be construed as a suggestion or authorization to reduce the defendant’s original sentence. In fact, it defies logic to suggest that the Appellate Court would remand a case to the trial court for it to assess additional victim injury points for the purpose of then having a lower sentence imposed.
Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to determine whether the defendant should receive the sentence initially imposed or whether a greater sentence should be imposed as a result of the additional victim injury points.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spioch v. State, 742 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…Thus, this court held, in the absence of physical trauma, victim injury points are appropriately assessed only in cases involving sexual battery, either by penetration or union. Cf. Vural v. State, 717 So. 2d 65 (Fla.App. 3d DCA 1998), rev. denied, 733 So. 2d 591 (1999). In the instant case, neither penetration nor union occurred, so the court incorrectly assessed the victim injury points. We do not agree with the state that the court erred in sentencing Spioch to time served for two of the twenty-three co…
Authorities Cited
- Erol Vural v. State, 717 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)