Buckner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Buckner v. State

637 So. 2d 392, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5879, 1994 WL 261379

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 1994

DocketNo. 93-3188

StatusPublished

This text of 637 So. 2d 392 (Buckner 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

Buckner v. State, 637 So. 2d 392, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5879, 1994 WL 261379 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserts, and the State concedes, the trial court made two errors below. First, the record does not support the court’s cited reason for imposing a departure sentence. See Firkey v. State, 593 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding the type of trauma that usually results from being a victim of a crime may not be used to justify departure). Second, the amended judgment contains several errors, including: it erroneously reflects that Count II is a second-degree felony when it is actually a third-degree felony; it states the appellant pled nolo contendere to Count IV instead of stating he was found and adjudicated guilty after a bench trial; and it states Count IV is a second degree felony when in fact appellant was found guilty of - a lesser included third-degree felony.

Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to sentence the appellant within the sentencing guidelines and to correct the three mistakes on the amended judgment.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserts, and the State concedes, the trial court made two errors below. First, the record does not support the court’s cited reason for imposing a departure sentence. See Firkey v. State, 593 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding the type of trauma that usually results from being a victim of a crime may not be used to justify departure). Second, the amended judgment contains several errors, including: it erroneously reflects that Count II is a second-degree felony when it is actually a third-degree felony; it states the appellant pled nolo contendere to Count IV instead of stating he was found and adjudicated guilty after a bench trial; and it states Count IV is a second degree felony when in fact appellant was found guilty of - a lesser included third-degree felony.

Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to sentence the appellant within the sentencing guidelines and to correct the three mistakes on the amended judgment.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 So. 2d 392, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5879, 1994 WL 261379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckner-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack