Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealhearingtrialtestimonypleaappellantguilty plea
trialpleacriminal procedureappellant

Related Cases

Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 122 S.Ct. 1764, 152 L.Ed.2d 888, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4307, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5472, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 281
View Case »
North Carolina State Bar v. Sheffield, 73 N.C.App. 349, 326 S.E.2d 320
View Case »
U.S. v. Teitler, 802 F.2d 606, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6395
View Case »
Moore v. Crone, 114 Conn.App. 443, 970 A.2d 757, 58 A.L.R.6th 769
View Case »
Fike v. Grant, 39 Ariz. 549, 8 P.2d 242
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bean v. State, 264 So.3d 947, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D219

Facts

In 2015, the appellant was charged with various crimes related to a bank robbery in Palm Beach County, where he forced bank tellers into a vault at gunpoint, assaulted them, and shot at a law enforcement officer during his escape. He pled guilty to all charges, which included attempted murder, sexual battery, and aggravated battery. At sentencing, the court imposed significant concurrent sentences based on a scoresheet that included points for slight victim injury, which the appellant contested.

In 2015, appellant was charged by information with various crimes related to a bank robbery in Palm Beach County. Appellant forced six bank tellers into the bank's vault room at gunpoint, hit each of the tellers over the head with a gun, made them strip their clothes, and sexually assaulted one of the tellers.

Issue

Did the trial court err in applying points for slight victim injury on the scoresheet, and did this violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights?

Appellant challenges his sentence imposed after his plea to multiple charges. He raises three issues. First, he contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him based upon an incorrect scoresheet that included points for 'slight victim injury' where there was insufficient evidence of such injury.

Rule

A trial court's assessment of victim injury points is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and points must be scored for each victim physically injured as a direct result of the offense.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704(d)(9) states that a court scores for 'victim injury' when there is 'physical injury or death suffered by a person as a direct result of any offense pending before the court for sentencing.'

Analysis

The court found that the inclusion of points for slight victim injury was warranted based on the evidence presented, including testimony that the victims were pistol-whipped and required medical attention. The court concluded that the appellant's guilty plea and acknowledgment of the facts allowed for judicial factfinding regarding the victim injury points, which did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights as no mandatory minimum sentence was increased.

Given the fact that all of the victims were beaten with a gun, the trial court was within its discretion in concluding that at least slight injury occurred.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's sentencing in part, but reversed the imposition of costs, remanding for a new hearing to clarify the statutory authority for the costs imposed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the appeal regarding the sentencing, as the court upheld the trial court's application of victim injury points.

The State charged him with fourteen counts, including: attempted first degree murder with a firearm of a LEO; sexual battery; five counts of kidnapping with a firearm; six counts of aggravated battery with a firearm; and aggravated assault with a firearm.

You must be