Matire v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matire v. State

520 So. 2d 292, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2240, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10245, 1987 WL 659

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 16, 1987·No. No. 4-86-1361·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction. However, the state admits that in light of the holding in Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), decided subsequent to the sentencing proceedings below, a habitual offender status is not an adequate reason to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Therefore, the trial judge erred in departing from the guidelines on the basis of finding the defendant a habitual offender. Accordingly, we remand for sentencing within the guidelines range.

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., and LUZZO, JOHN T., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction. However, the state admits that in light of the holding in Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), decided subsequent to the sentencing proceedings below, a habitual offender status is not an adequate reason to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Therefore, the trial judge erred in departing from the guidelines on the basis of finding the defendant a habitual offender. Accordingly, we remand for sentencing within the guidelines range.

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., and LUZZO, JOHN T., Associate Judge, concur.

Matire v. State, 520 So. 2d 292, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2240, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10245, 1987 WL 659 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

520 So. 2d 292 (Matire v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related