TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Linkous v. State

Linkous v. State, 618 So. 2d 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 21, 1993
Docket
No. 93-00957
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
618 So. 2d 2941993 WL 125098

Opinion — Per Curiam

618 So.2d 294 (1993)

John Douglas LINKOUS, Appellant,

v.

STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 93-00957.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 21, 1993. Rehearing Denied May 13, 1993.

*295 PER CURIAM.

John Linkous appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence.

Of the two issues raised in the motion, one is sufficient to require further proceedings. Linkous, who was convicted of engaging a minor in sexual activity, alleges that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet included 240 points for "victim injury" although no actual physical trauma was suffered by the victim. See Karchesky v. State, 591 So.2d 930 (Fla. 1992). Assuming his claim is factually correct, deletion of the scoresheet points would affect the presumptive sentence.

The trial court denied the motion on the authority of Perryman v. State, 608 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), which states that a contemporaneous objection is necessary to preserve the Karchesky issue for appellate review. However, this court has held otherwise. Morris v. State, 605 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The trial court was obligated to follow Morris ; Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); and should do so after remand. And see Harrelson v. State, 616 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We acknowledge conflict between Morris and Perryman .

The trial court properly denied relief as to the second issue raised in Linkous's motion, and we affirm the remainder of the court's order.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

FRANK, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1993: 11994: 11995: 219932026peak 1995 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Montague v. State656 So. 2d 508 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
  2. Harper v. State632 So. 2d 104 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
  3. Singleton v. State620 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
  4. Pinacle v. State654 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1995)

Most recent

  1. Montague v. State656 So. 2d 508 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
  2. Pinacle v. State654 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1995)
  3. Harper v. State632 So. 2d 104 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
  4. Singleton v. State620 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Morris v. State, 605 So. 2d 511 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) 31
Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1992) 135
Perryman v. State, 608 So. 2d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) 11
Chapman v. Pinellas Cnty., 423 So. 2d 578 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) 39
Harrelson v. State, 616 So. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) 23
State v. Green, 618 So. 2d 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list