Ciuros v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ciuros v. State

641 So. 2d 912, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6990, 1994 WL 369661

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 1994

DocketNo. 93-01647

StatusPublished

This text of 641 So. 2d 912 (Ciuros 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

Ciuros v. State, 641 So. 2d 912, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6990, 1994 WL 369661 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mark N. Ciuros appeals various convictions stemming from a shooting incident in a bar which involved his estranged wife and others. He also appeals the departure sentence he received and the restitution ordered for injuries to one of the victims. We find no reversible error in the issues raised which deal with the convictions. Accordingly, we affirm all his convictions. We do, however, find sentencing error and reverse for resen-tencing.

At the sentencing hearing the trial judge heard argument and orally stated the reasons to support the departure. We do not reach the sufficiency of those reasons because the judge did not file the written reasons contemporaneously, but waited until eleven days later. This was error.

We remand for resentencing within the guidelines. See Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), modified by State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991); see also Hall v. State, 598 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). At the resentencing hearing, the trial judge should also revisit the imposition of restitution. It [913]*913was represented to this court at oral argument without objection that the trial judge announced at the sentencing hearing that restitution would be imposed in the amount of $7,000.. The court minutes of the sentencing hearing and the written sentence show $17,,000 restitution imposed. The incomplete excerpt of the sentencing hearing in the appellate record does not clarify this discrepancy. Since resentencing is necessary, the correct amount of restitution can be clarified at that time.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mark N. Ciuros appeals various convictions stemming from a shooting incident in a bar which involved his estranged wife and others. He also appeals the departure sentence he received and the restitution ordered for injuries to one of the victims. We find no reversible error in the issues raised which deal with the convictions. Accordingly, we affirm all his convictions. We do, however, find sentencing error and reverse for resen-tencing.

At the sentencing hearing the trial judge heard argument and orally stated the reasons to support the departure. We do not reach the sufficiency of those reasons because the judge did not file the written reasons contemporaneously, but waited until eleven days later. This was error.

We remand for resentencing within the guidelines. See Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), modified by State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991); see also Hall v. State, 598 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). At the resentencing hearing, the trial judge should also revisit the imposition of restitution. It [913]*913was represented to this court at oral argument without objection that the trial judge announced at the sentencing hearing that restitution would be imposed in the amount of $7,000.. The court minutes of the sentencing hearing and the written sentence show $17,,000 restitution imposed. The incomplete excerpt of the sentencing hearing in the appellate record does not clarify this discrepancy. Since resentencing is necessary, the correct amount of restitution can be clarified at that time.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 So. 2d 912, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6990, 1994 WL 369661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciuros-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack