Butler v. State

545 So. 2d 447, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1491, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3467, 1989 WL 65866
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 20, 1989·No. Nos. 88-1079, 88-1009·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As the parties agree, four of the five grounds asserted by the trial judge for the upward departure sentence imposed below are invalid. See Hester v. State, 520 So.2d 273 (Fla.1988); McGriff v. State, 528 So.2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), approved, 537 So.2d 107 (Fla.1989); Solomon v. State, 528 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Under McGriff v. State, 537 So.2d 107 (Fla.1989), since the crime involved occurred prior to the enactment of section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes (1987), the cause is governed by the rule of Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), that the trial court must now determine whether to depart on the basis of the one legally sufficient ground— the temporal proximity between the defendant’s release from prison and the instant offense. See State v. Jones, 530 So.2d 53 (Fla.1988). The cause is accordingly remanded for resentencing.

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

Butler v. State, 545 So. 2d 447, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1491, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3467, 1989 WL 65866 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

545 So. 2d 447 (Butler v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Butler v. State
593 So. 2d 569 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Lago v. State
582 So. 2d 118 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)