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

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 25, 1987·No. No. 4-86-1209·Published

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.

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

Pincite

502 So. 2d 1015 (London v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related