Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: PATRICIA DAGAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2019-04-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PATRICIA DAGAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Hendrix v. State, 224 So. 3d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that a snapout cannot serve as a written competency order); Gray v. State, 198 So. 3d 780 , 782–83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that a snapout cannot serve as a written judgment or sentence); Phillips v. State, 198 So. 3d 789, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), Zaborowski v. State, 126 So. 3d 405 , 407 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), Thar v. State, 8 So. 3d 1204 , 1205 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and Cochrane v. State, 997 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Altenbernd, J., concurring) (each noting this court's longstanding discouragement of th…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zaborowski v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See Sutton v. State, 838 So.2d 616 , 617 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Heath v. State, 840 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Richardson v. State, 761 So.2d 1232, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Peterson v. State, 730 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Grantham v. State, 735 So.2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Richardson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Peterson v. State, 730 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (filed April 14, 1999); Grantham v. State, 735 So.2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (filed May 14, 1999).
discussed Cited "see" Monroe v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Grantham v. State, 735 So.2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing Donley, 557 So.2d 943 ). *290 This Memo of Sentence states that "court found deft violated cond # 4." Condition 4 requires that a probationer not violate the law.
cited Cited "see" Wagner v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Grantham v. State, 735 So.2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jelks v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Grantham v. State, 735 So.2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). [2] We note that the record in this case contains a level of disarray that is all too typical for appeals of sentences imposed on violation of probation or community control.
Buster GRANTHAM, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
97-05074.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 14, 1999.
735 So. 2d 525
Altenbernd.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.

Buster Grantham appeals the order revoking his community control and the[*526] resulting sentence of incarceration. We affirm the order revoking community control for a violation of condition 10. On remand, the trial court must enter a formal, written order of revocation because the memorandum of sentencing in the file is insufficient to serve as that order. See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Mr. Grantham also challenges the inclusion of eighteen points on his scoresheet for possession of a firearm during the commission of his crime. We conclude that these points are not prohibited by White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla.1998), and affirm on this issue.

Mr. Grantham pleaded nolo contendere to the charge of "armed" trafficking in methamphetamine for events occurring in September 1996. In 1996, trafficking in methamphetamine, for a quantity more than 28 grams but less than 200 grams, was a first-degree felony. See § 893.135(1)(f)(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996). Because Mr. Grantham used a weapon during the commission of this trafficking offense, the crime was reclassified by one felony degree, and its penalty was enhanced by one sentencing level. See § 775.087(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). It was not essential that the weapon be a firearm for this reclassification to occur.[1] The trafficking offense could have been reclassified if a knife or any weapon had been used during the commission of the offense. Coincidentally, the resulting enhancement of the sentencing level adds eighteen points to Mr. Grantham's scoresheet, which is the same number of points added for use of a firearm under section 921.0014(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).

Mr. Grantham argues that the inclusion of the points attributable to the use of a weapon under section 775.087(1) prohibits the court from including the points for use of a firearm under section 921.0014(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). See also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(19). Because trafficking in methamphetamine, armed or otherwise, is not an offense enumerated in section 775.087(2) and the carrying or possessing of a weapon or firearm is not an essential element of that offense, we conclude that the trial court properly reclassified the felony pursuant to section 775.087(1), resulting in an increase of sentencing points. Because Mr. Grantham's weapon of choice was a firearm, the sentence was further enhanced pursuant to section 921.0014(1) for use of a firearm.[2] Unlike White, this is not a situation in which the carrying or possessing of a firearm was an essential element of the charged offense even after the offense was reclassified. The trial court simply fulfilled the intent of the legislature that is expressed in these two separate statutes.

Affirmed with instructions.

CASANUEVA, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.

1 Indeed, the reclassification can occur if the defendant commits an aggravated battery without use of any weapon. See § 775.087(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996).
2 Even if we were to find error in the inclusion of these points, we are not convinced that we could provide relief. Our record does not reflect any objection to the scoresheet, either at the original sentencing or upon the revocation of community control. Mr. Grantham did not seek relief through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).