Patrick Scott v. State of Florida , 260 So. 3d 1147 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •          FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D15-3134
    _____________________________
    PATRICK SCOTT,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
    James O. Shelfer, Judge.
    December 14, 2018
    PER CURIAM.
    In this direct appeal, we affirm Appellant’s convictions and
    sentences for sexual battery and possession of cocaine. We write
    only to address Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in
    scoring his prior Georgia burglary conviction as burglary of an
    occupied structure.
    Below and on appeal, the parties disagree whether the
    underlying facts establish that the store in Georgia was occupied
    when Appellant burglarized it. However, “neither the trial court
    nor this court is permitted to consider underlying facts in
    determining the existence of an analogous Florida offense.” Snipes
    v. State, 
    793 So. 2d 1107
    , 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Instead, only
    the elements of the out-of-state crime should be considered in
    determining whether a conviction is analogous to a Florida crime.
    Dautel v. State, 
    658 So. 2d 88
    , 91 (Fla. 1995); Bracey v. State, 
    109 So. 3d 311
    , 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Michaud v. State, 
    2 So. 3d 375
    ,
    376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Montoure v. State, 
    880 So. 2d 793
    , 794
    (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Knarich v. State, 
    866 So. 2d 165
    , 168 (Fla. 2d
    DCA 2004); Snipes, 
    793 So. 2d at 1108
    ; Holybrice v. State, 
    753 So. 2d 621
    , 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Lee v. State, 
    675 So. 2d 682
    , 683
    (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
    Appellant has not argued below or on appeal that the trial
    court erred in relying on underlying facts to score the Georgia
    burglary conviction or that the elements of the out-of-state crime
    were not analogous to the Florida offense of burglary of an occupied
    structure. Here, the court will not reverse the trial court’s ruling
    on grounds neither raised nor argued by the parties. Accordingly,
    we affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    BILBREY, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
    _____________________________
    Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A.,
    Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes,
    Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
    2