Barry v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barry v. State

626 So. 2d 270, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10972, 1993 WL 435885

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 1993

DocketNo. 92-00343

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 626 So. 2d 270 (Barry 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

Barry v. State, 626 So. 2d 270, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10972, 1993 WL 435885 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences arising out of a large-scale cocaine smuggling operation contending there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions, an erroneous denial of a motion to suppress, and an invalid departure sentence imposed without contemporaneous reasons. We find no error in the issues raised relating to his convictions. There is, however, reversible error in the trial court’s imposing a departure sentence without providing contemporaneous reasons for departure at the sentencing hearing. See Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1829 (Fla.1990), modified by State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991); see also Hall v. State, 598 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we affirm his convictions but reverse his sentences and remand for resen-tencing within the guidelines.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences arising out of a large-scale cocaine smuggling operation contending there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions, an erroneous denial of a motion to suppress, and an invalid departure sentence imposed without contemporaneous reasons. We find no error in the issues raised relating to his convictions. There is, however, reversible error in the trial court’s imposing a departure sentence without providing contemporaneous reasons for departure at the sentencing hearing. See Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1829 (Fla.1990), modified by State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991); see also Hall v. State, 598 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we affirm his convictions but reverse his sentences and remand for resen-tencing within the guidelines.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 So. 2d 270, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10972, 1993 WL 435885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack