Dukes v. State

532 So. 2d 1302, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2417, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4731, 1988 WL 113134
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dukes v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 12 Fla. L. Weekly 717
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 26, 1988·No. No. 87-418·Published

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from his sentence imposed upon the revocation of his probation. [1303]*1303He contends that the trial court erred in departing from the recommended guidelines sentence without proper reasons. We affirm.

The basis of the contention is that the reasons for the departure in the typed sentencing order which was prepared and signed well after the sentencing hearing were insufficient because that order was, contrary to the dictates of Carnegie v. State, 473 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), prepared by an assistant state attorney. However, the sentencing order was substantially consistent with handwritten reasons placed by the trial judge on the score-sheet at the hearing. See Gard v. State, 521 So.2d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

AFFIRMED.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

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

Dukes v. State, 532 So. 2d 1302, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2417, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4731, 1988 WL 113134 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

532 So. 2d 1302 (Dukes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carnegie v. State
473 So. 2d 782 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Gard v. State
521 So. 2d 369 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)