Case Name: Paris LAPOINTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-10-23
Citations: 587 So. 2d 667
Docket Number: No. 90-1232
Parties: Paris LAPOINTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GARRETT, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 587
Pages: 667–668

Head Matter:
Paris LAPOINTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 90-1232.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 23, 1991.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Barbara A. White, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Melvina Racey Flaherty, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is a timely appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence on six counts, wherein the trial judge assessed 144 points because appellant was under legal constraint at the time of the commission of the criminal acts under consideration. On appeal, the sole question presented is whether the trial court erred in assessing points for each of the substantive offenses for which appellant was being sentenced.
Because the question had been certified to the supreme court by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Flowers v. State, 567 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), we withheld a decision in this case until resolution of Flowers. The supreme court has now authoritatively addressed the question in Flowers v. State, 586 So.2d 1058 (Fla.1991), holding that Florida's Uniform Sentencing Guidelines do not require that legal constraint points be assessed for each offense committed while under legal constraint.
Accordingly, we reverse the sentences appealed from in this case and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to resentenee appellant in accordance with the holding by the supreme court in the Flowers case.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GARRETT, J., concur.