Bailey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bailey v. State

485 So. 2d 482, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 734, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7018

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1986

DocketNo. 84-1436

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 485 So. 2d 482 (Bailey 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

Bailey v. State, 485 So. 2d 482, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 734, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7018 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction for second-degree murder is affirmed. Compare State v. Bryan, 287 So.2d 73 (Fla.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 912, 94 S.Ct. 2611, 41 L.Ed.2d 216 (1974), and Hines v. State, 227 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), with Marasa v. State, 394 So.2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 402 So.2d 613 (Fla.1981). However, the sentence above that recommended by the sentencing guidelines must be reversed and the cause remanded for [483]*483resentencing. As the State candidly admits, of the nine reasons given by the trial court to justify the departure, eight are invalid. The only valid reason given by the trial court is that the defendant created “a risk of harm to other people by shooting a firearm in an occupied business establishment.” Since the State has not been able “to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence,” we reverse and remand for resentencing. Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985). See Flemmings v. State, 476 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Wiggins v. State, 476 So.2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Baker v. State, 466 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction for second-degree murder is affirmed. Compare State v. Bryan, 287 So.2d 73 (Fla.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 912, 94 S.Ct. 2611, 41 L.Ed.2d 216 (1974), and Hines v. State, 227 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), with Marasa v. State, 394 So.2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 402 So.2d 613 (Fla.1981). However, the sentence above that recommended by the sentencing guidelines must be reversed and the cause remanded for [483]*483resentencing. As the State candidly admits, of the nine reasons given by the trial court to justify the departure, eight are invalid. The only valid reason given by the trial court is that the defendant created “a risk of harm to other people by shooting a firearm in an occupied business establishment.” Since the State has not been able “to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence,” we reverse and remand for resentencing. Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985). See Flemmings v. State, 476 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Wiggins v. State, 476 So.2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Baker v. State, 466 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 So. 2d 482, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 734, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack