Karliss v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Karliss v. State

477 So. 2d 1092, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2477, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16560

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 6, 1985

DocketNo. 84-660

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 477 So. 2d 1092 (Karliss 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

Karliss v. State, 477 So. 2d 1092, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2477, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16560 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines (the conviction was for grand theft), based on these two challenged reasons:

1. Deterrence. This was error based on Williams v. State, 462 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

2. Defendant used his fiduciary position of trust to execute these particular offenses. This was error based on Mischler v. State, 458 So.2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Although other reasons were assigned we, applying the standard found in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), reverse and remand for resentencing.

We have reviewed the several other points asserted on appeal and find no reversible error.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

LETTS, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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