Averill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Averill v. State

463 So. 2d 272, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2304, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15706

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 1984

DocketNo. 83-2389

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 463 So. 2d 272 (Averill v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Averill v. State, 463 So. 2d 272, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2304, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15706 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find sufficient evidence in the record to support appellant’s conviction as a public servant of accepting benefits not authorized by law for the past, present or future exertion of influence upon other public servants which is prohibited by section 838.016(2), Florida Statutes (1981). Moreover, we cannot say that appellant was deprived of a fair trial by court rulings which prevented him from introducing certain evidence in his behalf. Appellant’s argument that the court could not impose a sentence outside the presumptive range of the guidelines based on facts relating to the instant offense was decided adversely to his position in Addison v. State, 452 So.2d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find sufficient evidence in the record to support appellant’s conviction as a public servant of accepting benefits not authorized by law for the past, present or future exertion of influence upon other public servants which is prohibited by section 838.016(2), Florida Statutes (1981). Moreover, we cannot say that appellant was deprived of a fair trial by court rulings which prevented him from introducing certain evidence in his behalf. Appellant’s argument that the court could not impose a sentence outside the presumptive range of the guidelines based on facts relating to the instant offense was decided adversely to his position in Addison v. State, 452 So.2d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 So. 2d 272, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2304, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/averill-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack