London v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

London v. State

502 So. 2d 1015, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 635, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6927

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 1987

DocketNo. 4-86-1209

StatusPublished

This text of 502 So. 2d 1015 (London 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

London v. State, 502 So. 2d 1015, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 635, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6927 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction but reverse the sentencing order with directions that the trial court impose a sentence no more than one cell higher than the sentencing guidelines call for because of his probation violation, see Boldes v. State, 475 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), unless the trial court determines that there are clear and convincing reasons for deviating further from the guidelines.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and KLEIN, HERBERT M., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction but reverse the sentencing order with directions that the trial court impose a sentence no more than one cell higher than the sentencing guidelines call for because of his probation violation, see Boldes v. State, 475 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), unless the trial court determines that there are clear and convincing reasons for deviating further from the guidelines.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and KLEIN, HERBERT M., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 1015, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 635, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/london-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack