Gaynor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gaynor v. State

479 So. 2d 246, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2710, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17236

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2626

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 479 So. 2d 246 (Gaynor 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

Gaynor v. State, 479 So. 2d 246, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2710, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17236 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, Judge.

Marcus Gaynor appeals his judgment and sentence for burglary, grand theft, carrying a concealed firearm, and felonious possession of a firearm. Appellant raises several issues in this appeal, but we find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines.

When sentencing appellant, the court did not state its reasons for departure but directed the state to submit a written list of reasons therefor, which list it would attach to the judgment and sentence. We have held such a direction to be an improper delegation of a responsibility belonging exclusively to the trial court. Furthermore, it falls far short of meeting the requirements set forth in section 921.001(6), Florida Statutes (1983), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11). Carnegie v. State, 473 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentence and remand this case for resentenc-ing.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

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

HALL, Judge.

Marcus Gaynor appeals his judgment and sentence for burglary, grand theft, carrying a concealed firearm, and felonious possession of a firearm. Appellant raises several issues in this appeal, but we find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines.

When sentencing appellant, the court did not state its reasons for departure but directed the state to submit a written list of reasons therefor, which list it would attach to the judgment and sentence. We have held such a direction to be an improper delegation of a responsibility belonging exclusively to the trial court. Furthermore, it falls far short of meeting the requirements set forth in section 921.001(6), Florida Statutes (1983), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11). Carnegie v. State, 473 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentence and remand this case for resentenc-ing.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 So. 2d 246, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2710, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaynor-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack