Barry v. State

626 So. 2d 270, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10972, 1993 WL 435885
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 29, 1993·No. No. 92-00343·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

626 So. 2d 270 (Barry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fannin v. State
751 So. 2d 158 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Barry v. State
654 So. 2d 1229 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Timonere v. State
631 So. 2d 1138 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)