Matthews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matthews v. State

502 So. 2d 63, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 469, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6647

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1987

DocketNo. BK-114

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 502 So. 2d 63 (Matthews 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

Matthews v. State, 502 So. 2d 63, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 469, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6647 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence for leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury. We affirm the judgment of conviction, but we find that in imposing sentence the court predicated a departure from the Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 sentencing guidelines upon impermissible considerations.

In its written reasons for departing from the recommended guidelines sentence the court indicated that appellant is an habitual offender, and that the recommended sentence does not provide adequate retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence. Classification as an habitual offender will not support a departure from the guidelines recommendation. See Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). The court’s conclusory statement as to retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence merely indicates a personal disagreement with the recommended sentence and thus also will not support a departure from the guidelines recommendation. Cf, Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986). Although the court did specify other reasons for departure, it is not clear that the same sentence would have been imposed without consideration of these impermissible factors.

[64]*64The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The sentence imposed is vacated, and the cause remanded for resentencing.

WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence for leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury. We affirm the judgment of conviction, but we find that in imposing sentence the court predicated a departure from the Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 sentencing guidelines upon impermissible considerations.

In its written reasons for departing from the recommended guidelines sentence the court indicated that appellant is an habitual offender, and that the recommended sentence does not provide adequate retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence. Classification as an habitual offender will not support a departure from the guidelines recommendation. See Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). The court’s conclusory statement as to retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence merely indicates a personal disagreement with the recommended sentence and thus also will not support a departure from the guidelines recommendation. Cf, Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986). Although the court did specify other reasons for departure, it is not clear that the same sentence would have been imposed without consideration of these impermissible factors.

[64]*64The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The sentence imposed is vacated, and the cause remanded for resentencing.

WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 63, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 469, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack