Gaynor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gaynor v. State

522 So. 2d 1047, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 911, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1380, 1988 WL 30234

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 6, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2387

StatusPublished

This text of 522 So. 2d 1047 (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, 522 So. 2d 1047, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 911, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1380, 1988 WL 30234 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

This case was previously before this court. Gaynor v. State, 505 So.2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We expressly held “Entry into an occupied dwelling is an essential element of [the crime charged]” and cannot be used as a reason to justify departure from the guidelines sentence. Id. at 469.

It is clear from the transcript that the trial court expressly refused to follow this court’s mandate in Gaynor. We reverse appellant’s sentence and remand with an order that the learned trial judge below resentence appellant within the guidelines.

The arguments on appeal concerning other possible reasons for departure will not be addressed by this panel based upon the Supreme Court of Florida’s holding in Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987), which was handed down subsequent to our first opinion in this case.

CAMPBELL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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