Dugues v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dugues v. State

499 So. 2d 7, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2497, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10848

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 26, 1986

DocketNo. 84-2572

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 499 So. 2d 7 (Dugues 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

Dugues v. State, 499 So. 2d 7, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2497, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10848 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Mario C. Dugues, appeals his sentence for burglary of a dwelling with a firearm and two counts of robbery with a firearm. We reverse and remand for resentencing for the following reasons. First, the trial court erred in that no written reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines were given. State v. Johnson, 486 So.2d 535, 536 (Fla.1986). Second, the trial court erred in imposing two consecutive mandatory minimum firearm sentences because when two counts of robbery occur simultaneously and as part of the same criminal episode, the sentences must be served concurrently and not consecutively. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983), opinion approved, State v. Suarez, 485 So.2d 1283 (Fla.1986). Third, even if the reasons for departure had been written, the trial court erred in using the habitual offender status of the defendant as a reason for departure from the recommended guidelines sentence. Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Mario C. Dugues, appeals his sentence for burglary of a dwelling with a firearm and two counts of robbery with a firearm. We reverse and remand for resentencing for the following reasons. First, the trial court erred in that no written reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines were given. State v. Johnson, 486 So.2d 535, 536 (Fla.1986). Second, the trial court erred in imposing two consecutive mandatory minimum firearm sentences because when two counts of robbery occur simultaneously and as part of the same criminal episode, the sentences must be served concurrently and not consecutively. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983), opinion approved, State v. Suarez, 485 So.2d 1283 (Fla.1986). Third, even if the reasons for departure had been written, the trial court erred in using the habitual offender status of the defendant as a reason for departure from the recommended guidelines sentence. Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 So. 2d 7, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2497, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dugues-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack