Frierson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frierson v. State

550 So. 2d 1192, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2545, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6105, 1989 WL 129800

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2142

StatusPublished

This text of 550 So. 2d 1192 (Frierson 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

Frierson v. State, 550 So. 2d 1192, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2545, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6105, 1989 WL 129800 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL, Chief Judge.

On appeal, the defendant contends that his departure sentence is invalid because the trial court failed to set forth written reasons for the departure. It is reversible error to impose a departure sentence under the sentencing guidelines without an accompanying written statement delineating the reasons for departure. State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985), receded from on other grounds, Wilkerson v. State, 513 So.2d 664 (Fla.1987); McCaskell v. State, 542 So.2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction for burglary, reverse his sentence and remand with directions that the trial judge either resentence the defendant within the range of the recommended sentencing guidelines or set forth in writing clear and convincing reasons for departure.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

COBB, J., and HARRIS, Associate Judge, concur.

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

DANIEL, Chief Judge.

On appeal, the defendant contends that his departure sentence is invalid because the trial court failed to set forth written reasons for the departure. It is reversible error to impose a departure sentence under the sentencing guidelines without an accompanying written statement delineating the reasons for departure. State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985), receded from on other grounds, Wilkerson v. State, 513 So.2d 664 (Fla.1987); McCaskell v. State, 542 So.2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction for burglary, reverse his sentence and remand with directions that the trial judge either resentence the defendant within the range of the recommended sentencing guidelines or set forth in writing clear and convincing reasons for departure.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

COBB, J., and HARRIS, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 So. 2d 1192, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2545, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6105, 1989 WL 129800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frierson-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack