McAfee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McAfee v. State

405 So. 2d 1350, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21612

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1981

DocketNo. 80-1440

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 405 So. 2d 1350 (McAfee 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

McAfee v. State, 405 So. 2d 1350, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21612 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWNEY, Judge.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of guilty of sexual battery entered pursuant to a jury verdict and from a sentence of 30 years.

We have considered appellant’s three points on appeal and found possible merit in only one of said points, that having to do with suggested error in the failure of the trial court to consider probation as an alternative sanction to sentencing appellant to a 30 year term of imprisonment. Since the transcript was not clear on whether the trial court fully understood and considered the alternatives available to him, we remanded the cause to the trial court to determine whether he had considered the alternative of placing appellant on probation, as allowed by Roberts v. State, 335 So.2d 285 (Fla.1976), and Berezovsky v. State, 350 So.2d 80 (Fla.1977). The trial court has entered a written order stating that: (a) he was fully familiar with the alternative of probation at the time that he sentenced appellant; (b) such alternative was considered by him; and (c) he did not feel probation was appropriate in this case.

Having fully considered all of appellant’s points and arguments and having found no error demonstrated, we affirm the judgment and sentence appealed from.

ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

DOWNEY, Judge.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of guilty of sexual battery entered pursuant to a jury verdict and from a sentence of 30 years.

We have considered appellant’s three points on appeal and found possible merit in only one of said points, that having to do with suggested error in the failure of the trial court to consider probation as an alternative sanction to sentencing appellant to a 30 year term of imprisonment. Since the transcript was not clear on whether the trial court fully understood and considered the alternatives available to him, we remanded the cause to the trial court to determine whether he had considered the alternative of placing appellant on probation, as allowed by Roberts v. State, 335 So.2d 285 (Fla.1976), and Berezovsky v. State, 350 So.2d 80 (Fla.1977). The trial court has entered a written order stating that: (a) he was fully familiar with the alternative of probation at the time that he sentenced appellant; (b) such alternative was considered by him; and (c) he did not feel probation was appropriate in this case.

Having fully considered all of appellant’s points and arguments and having found no error demonstrated, we affirm the judgment and sentence appealed from.

ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 So. 2d 1350, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcafee-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack