Hyde v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hyde v. State

524 So. 2d 1166, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1230, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2070, 1988 WL 48993

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2168

StatusPublished

This text of 524 So. 2d 1166 (Hyde 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

Hyde v. State, 524 So. 2d 1166, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1230, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2070, 1988 WL 48993 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Rebecca Catherine Hyde, again challenges the departure sentences imposed after she was convicted of possession of cannabis, delivery of cannabis, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In Hyde v. State, 506 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), we reversed the appellant’s sentence and remanded for [1167]*1167resentencing because the trial court failed to give written reasons for departing from the guidelines. Again, we must reverse and remand for resentencing.

Although the sentencing guidelines called for a sentence of community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration, the trial court imposed sentences to-talling twenty-five years imprisonment. Of the three written reasons the trial court gave for its departure, we find only the fact that the appellant exposed a three month old baby and an eleven year old child to great danger when the appellant attempted to pull a loaded firearm from her purse to be a valid reason to depart. See Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986). Under the facts of this case, the other reasons were either invalid, see Atwaters v. State, 519 So.2d 611 (Fla.1988) (quantity of drugs involved), or unsupported by the record. See Nelson v. State, 516 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (need to protect society from defendant may be valid in particular circumstances).

Since we are unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the invalid reasons did not affect the departure sentence, we reverse the sentences imposed and remand for resentencing. See Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

Reversed and remanded.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Rebecca Catherine Hyde, again challenges the departure sentences imposed after she was convicted of possession of cannabis, delivery of cannabis, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In Hyde v. State, 506 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), we reversed the appellant’s sentence and remanded for [1167]*1167resentencing because the trial court failed to give written reasons for departing from the guidelines. Again, we must reverse and remand for resentencing.

Although the sentencing guidelines called for a sentence of community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration, the trial court imposed sentences to-talling twenty-five years imprisonment. Of the three written reasons the trial court gave for its departure, we find only the fact that the appellant exposed a three month old baby and an eleven year old child to great danger when the appellant attempted to pull a loaded firearm from her purse to be a valid reason to depart. See Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986). Under the facts of this case, the other reasons were either invalid, see Atwaters v. State, 519 So.2d 611 (Fla.1988) (quantity of drugs involved), or unsupported by the record. See Nelson v. State, 516 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (need to protect society from defendant may be valid in particular circumstances).

Since we are unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the invalid reasons did not affect the departure sentence, we reverse the sentences imposed and remand for resentencing. See Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

Reversed and remanded.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 So. 2d 1166, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1230, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2070, 1988 WL 48993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyde-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack