Chisholm v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chisholm v. State

667 So. 2d 1010, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1383, 1996 WL 61367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 1996

DocketNo. 95-0778

StatusPublished

This text of 667 So. 2d 1010 (Chisholm 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

Chisholm v. State, 667 So. 2d 1010, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1383, 1996 WL 61367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s sentence to six years in prison, in case no. 93-462, exceeds the guidelines-permitted range of two and one-half to five and one-half years incarceration. At sentencing, the court and all the parties were under the mistaken impression that the range under the scoresheet was three and one-half to seven years.

Although Appellant acknowledged at sentencing that he was facing a potential seven year sentence, this cannot be construed as acquiescence to the higher grid where neither he nor the court understood that the sentence to be imposed was a guidelines departure. See Calleja v. State, 562 So.2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

We therefore reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may consider a departure sentence. State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989).

GUNTHER, C.J., and STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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