Jimenez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jimenez v. State

506 So. 2d 1165, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1234, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8181

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 12, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1560

StatusPublished

This text of 506 So. 2d 1165 (Jimenez 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

Jimenez v. State, 506 So. 2d 1165, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1234, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8181 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal; we find a sufficient factual basis to support the trial court’s revocation of the appellant’s probation. See Evans v. State, 427 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Kord v. State, 361 So.2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). However, we do find a sentencing error. In imposing sentence in the instant case, the trial judge departed from the presumptive sentence for several invalid reasons, see Keyes v. State, 500 So.2d 134 (Fla.1986); Lerma v. State, 497 So.2d 736 (Fla.1986); Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986); Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986); Hankey v. State, 485 So.2d 827 (Fla.1986); Hendsbee v. State, 497 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Chandler v. State, 490 So.2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), as well as some valid reasons. Since we are not convinced beyond a reasonable [1166]*1166doubt that notwithstanding the trial court's reliance on these invalid reasons for departure it would have imposed the same sentence, we reverse the sentence imposed and return for resentencing. See Casteel v. State, 498 So.2d 1249 (Fla.1986); Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment but reverse the sentence and remand for resen-tencing consistent herewith.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal; we find a sufficient factual basis to support the trial court’s revocation of the appellant’s probation. See Evans v. State, 427 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Kord v. State, 361 So.2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). However, we do find a sentencing error. In imposing sentence in the instant case, the trial judge departed from the presumptive sentence for several invalid reasons, see Keyes v. State, 500 So.2d 134 (Fla.1986); Lerma v. State, 497 So.2d 736 (Fla.1986); Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986); Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986); Hankey v. State, 485 So.2d 827 (Fla.1986); Hendsbee v. State, 497 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Chandler v. State, 490 So.2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), as well as some valid reasons. Since we are not convinced beyond a reasonable [1166]*1166doubt that notwithstanding the trial court's reliance on these invalid reasons for departure it would have imposed the same sentence, we reverse the sentence imposed and return for resentencing. See Casteel v. State, 498 So.2d 1249 (Fla.1986); Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment but reverse the sentence and remand for resen-tencing consistent herewith.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 So. 2d 1165, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1234, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack