Bouthner v. State

489 So. 2d 784, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1069
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 8, 1986
Docket85-1455
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 489 So. 2d 784 (Bouthner 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
Bouthner v. State, 489 So. 2d 784, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1069 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

489 So.2d 784 (1986)

William M. BOUTHNER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-1455.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 8, 1986.
Rehearing Denied June 3, 1986.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kenneth Witts, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

The departure sentence in this case was based on the adjudication of the defendant as an habitual offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1983). The adjudication as an habitual felony offender was based on the defendant's criminal record and current conviction which have already been factored into the recommended guideline sentence. Since there is no additional clear and convincing reason this departure sentence was inconsistent with Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 1985). See Moultrie v. State, 488 So.2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Vicknair v. State, 483 So.2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). In addition a notation on the guidelines scoresheet that the defendant was "sentenced as an habitual offender with necessary findings of fact by the court" does not *785 comply with State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1985). The reasons stated at the sentencing hearing and transcribed in the record do not fulfill the purpose of Rule 3.701(d)(11). Accordingly the conviction is affirmed but the sentence vacated and this matter remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.

UPCHURCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Johnson v. State
524 So. 2d 1153 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Barnes v. State
519 So. 2d 1112 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
State v. Lemon
517 So. 2d 117 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Vogtsberger v. State
502 So. 2d 984 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Hernandez v. State
501 So. 2d 163 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Morganti v. State
498 So. 2d 557 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Roseman v. State
497 So. 2d 986 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Speights v. State
495 So. 2d 882 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Watson v. State
492 So. 2d 831 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
489 So. 2d 784, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouthner-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.