Farmer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Farmer v. State

405 So. 2d 746, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21367

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Farmer v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 366 So. 2d 1271 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 14, 1981·No. No. 80-833·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has raised two points in his brief which we conclude do not demonstrate reversible error.

At oral argument appellant contended additionally that the sentence imposed violates the rule laid down in Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Com’n, 396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981), and appellant urges that the case be remanded for a new sentencing under the Villery guidelines.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed from in all respects, but we reverse the sentence and remand the cause with directions to vacate the present sentence and resentence appellant in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Villery decision.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has raised two points in his brief which we conclude do not demonstrate reversible error.

At oral argument appellant contended additionally that the sentence imposed violates the rule laid down in Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Com’n, 396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981), and appellant urges that the case be remanded for a new sentencing under the Villery guidelines.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed from in all respects, but we reverse the sentence and remand the cause with directions to vacate the present sentence and resentence appellant in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Villery decision.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Farmer v. State, 405 So. 2d 746, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

405 So. 2d 746 (Farmer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related