McCarthy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCarthy v. State

492 So. 2d 462, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1735, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9257

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1443

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 492 So. 2d 462 (McCarthy 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

McCarthy v. State, 492 So. 2d 462, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1735, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9257 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

This is another sentencing guidelines departure case.

We affirm the convictions but reverse the sentence which departed downward from the recommended guideline sentence. The four reasons given for departure consist in substance of but two reasons, viz: the defendant’s young age and the need to bring the defendant’s sentence into parity with the sentence imposed on certain co-defendants. To make one defendant's sentence more consistent with sentences imposed upon co-defendants is not a valid ground for imposing a departure sentence. See Brinson v. State, 483 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Von Carter v. State, 468 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Thomas v. State, 461 So.2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Pursuant to Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), the sentence is vacated and the cause remanded to impose either the recommended guideline sentence or a departure sentence in conformity with the sentencing guidelines (Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701).

CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

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

COWART, Judge.

This is another sentencing guidelines departure case.

We affirm the convictions but reverse the sentence which departed downward from the recommended guideline sentence. The four reasons given for departure consist in substance of but two reasons, viz: the defendant’s young age and the need to bring the defendant’s sentence into parity with the sentence imposed on certain co-defendants. To make one defendant's sentence more consistent with sentences imposed upon co-defendants is not a valid ground for imposing a departure sentence. See Brinson v. State, 483 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Von Carter v. State, 468 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Thomas v. State, 461 So.2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Pursuant to Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), the sentence is vacated and the cause remanded to impose either the recommended guideline sentence or a departure sentence in conformity with the sentencing guidelines (Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701).

CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 So. 2d 462, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1735, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack