Agatone v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Agatone v. State

487 So. 2d 1060, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 205, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2173

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 1986

DocketNo. 67611

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 487 So. 2d 1060 (Agatone v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Agatone v. State, 487 So. 2d 1060, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 205, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2173 (Fla. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

EHRLICH, Justice.

We have for review Agatone v. State, 474 So.2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) in which the district court certified the following question of great public importance:

WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASONS THAT ARE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.071 IN REACHING ITS DECISION TO DEPART FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, SHOULD THE APPELLATE COURT EXAMINE THE OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY A DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENCING?

Id. at 847. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. We have answered this question previously in Griffin v. State, 479 So.2d 739 (Fla.1985), State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985), and Brinson v. State, 476 So.2d 162 (Fla.1985) in which we held that when a departure sentence is based on both permissible and impermissible reasons, “the sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence.” Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985).

In the case sub judice the district court affirmed the departure sentence despite finding that one of the reasons for departure, “that appellant was a devious person who committed perjury before the court,” was an invalid reason, especially given the fact that appellant was never charged with peijury.

Accordingly, we quash the decision and remand to the district court for further remand to the trial court for resentencing.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EHRLICH, Justice.

We have for review Agatone v. State, 474 So.2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) in which the district court certified the following question of great public importance:

WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASONS THAT ARE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.071 IN REACHING ITS DECISION TO DEPART FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, SHOULD THE APPELLATE COURT EXAMINE THE OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY A DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENCING?

Id. at 847. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. We have answered this question previously in Griffin v. State, 479 So.2d 739 (Fla.1985), State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985), and Brinson v. State, 476 So.2d 162 (Fla.1985) in which we held that when a departure sentence is based on both permissible and impermissible reasons, “the sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence.” Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985).

In the case sub judice the district court affirmed the departure sentence despite finding that one of the reasons for departure, “that appellant was a devious person who committed perjury before the court,” was an invalid reason, especially given the fact that appellant was never charged with peijury.

Accordingly, we quash the decision and remand to the district court for further remand to the trial court for resentencing.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 So. 2d 1060, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 205, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agatone-v-state-fla-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack