Chambliss v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chambliss v. State

562 So. 2d 866, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4570, 1990 WL 86940

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 562 So. 2d 866 (Chambliss 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

Chambliss v. State, 562 So. 2d 866, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4570, 1990 WL 86940 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL, Chief Judge.

' Defendant, Roy Edward Chambliss, Jr., appeals the departure sentence imposed by the trial court, claiming that the sole reason stated for departure, that defendant’s crimes constituted a “crime wave,” is invalid. We agree. See State v. Simpson, 554 So.2d 506 (Fla.1989); Mathis v. State, 515 So.2d 214 (Fla.1987); State v. Rousseau, 509 So.2d 281 (Fla.1987). See also Towe v. State, 536 So.2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Morgan v. State, 528 So.2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Hayes v. State, 516 So.2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, defendant’s sentence is vacated and this matter is remanded for sentencing within the recommended sentencing guidelines range. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987). While recognizing the frustrations encountered by trial judges when dealing with sentencing issues, this court is constrained to enforce the law as set forth by the Legislature and interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

DANIEL, Chief Judge.

' Defendant, Roy Edward Chambliss, Jr., appeals the departure sentence imposed by the trial court, claiming that the sole reason stated for departure, that defendant’s crimes constituted a “crime wave,” is invalid. We agree. See State v. Simpson, 554 So.2d 506 (Fla.1989); Mathis v. State, 515 So.2d 214 (Fla.1987); State v. Rousseau, 509 So.2d 281 (Fla.1987). See also Towe v. State, 536 So.2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Morgan v. State, 528 So.2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Hayes v. State, 516 So.2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, defendant’s sentence is vacated and this matter is remanded for sentencing within the recommended sentencing guidelines range. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987). While recognizing the frustrations encountered by trial judges when dealing with sentencing issues, this court is constrained to enforce the law as set forth by the Legislature and interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

562 So. 2d 866, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4570, 1990 WL 86940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambliss-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack