Kendricks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kendricks v. State

508 So. 2d 532, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1473, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8785

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 1987

DocketNos. 85-2797, 85-2798, 85-2910, and 85-2911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 532 (Kendricks 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

Kendricks v. State, 508 So. 2d 532, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1473, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8785 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

In these consolidated cases defendants appeal from their convictions for dealing in stolen property. Finding no merit in their contentions on appeal, we affirm.

The state cross-appeals from the trial court’s downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The trial court’s reasons for the departure were inadequate. They were not reduced to writing. State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). Also, the reasons orally given were invalid. As to the first reason, see Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986). The second reason was that by imposing probation instead of the prison sentence recommended by the guidelines, the trial court would have more control over defendants. This reason seems basically no more than a disagreement with the guidelines, which is proscribed by Williams as a reason for departure.

The convictions are affirmed. The causes are remanded for resentencing within the guidelines recommended range.

DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

In these consolidated cases defendants appeal from their convictions for dealing in stolen property. Finding no merit in their contentions on appeal, we affirm.

The state cross-appeals from the trial court’s downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The trial court’s reasons for the departure were inadequate. They were not reduced to writing. State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). Also, the reasons orally given were invalid. As to the first reason, see Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986). The second reason was that by imposing probation instead of the prison sentence recommended by the guidelines, the trial court would have more control over defendants. This reason seems basically no more than a disagreement with the guidelines, which is proscribed by Williams as a reason for departure.

The convictions are affirmed. The causes are remanded for resentencing within the guidelines recommended range.

DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 532, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1473, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendricks-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack