Hardimon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hardimon v. State

527 So. 2d 876, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1456, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2613, 1988 WL 62017

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 1988

DocketNos. 4-86-2489, 87-0233

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 527 So. 2d 876 (Hardimon 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

Hardimon v. State, 527 So. 2d 876, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1456, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2613, 1988 WL 62017 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court originally departed from the sentencing guidelines based solely upon [877]*877a finding that appellant was a habitual offender. While the appeal was pending, the defendant moved this court to relinquish jurisdiction because of the supreme court’s decision in Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), holding that a departure sentence may not be based upon habitual offender status. The motion was not opposed and was granted.

The trial court withdrew its original reason for departure, but again departed based upon the emotional trauma to the victim. We reverse and remand with directions that appellant be sentenced within the guidelines. See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987); Brumley v. State, 520 So.2d 275 (Fla.1988), and Harris v. State, 520 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

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