Hawryluk v. State
This text of 543 So. 2d 1318 (Hawryluk 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.
Opinion
Matthew Edward HAWRYLUK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Larry B. Henderson, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Kellie A. Nielan and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Asst. Attys. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a guideline sentence. Because the sentencing judge did not render contemporaneous written reasons justifying the departure-from-the-guidelines sentence we must vacate the sentence and remand for proper resentencing. State v. Oden, 478 So.2d 51 (Fla. 1985). We have been told that the sentencing judge rendered written reasons over three months after the pronouncement of the sentence. This was ineffectual because this court, not the trial court, had jurisdiction of the case by that time, due to the filing of the notice of appeal.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
543 So. 2d 1318, 1989 WL 56318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawryluk-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.