Miele v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miele v. State

584 So. 2d 1104, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8398, 1991 WL 158576

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1628

StatusPublished

This text of 584 So. 2d 1104 (Miele 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

Miele v. State, 584 So. 2d 1104, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8398, 1991 WL 158576 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Giovanno Antonio Miele was tried by jury and duly convicted of certain drug offenses. While we affirm Miele’s convictions we reverse the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing. We agree with Miele’s assertion that because the offenses charged were committed in 1988, before the present habitual offender statute, under Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), he could not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment longer than that recommended by the guidelines. The state agrees with Miele’s position as just outlined. Further, the other reason asserted by the trial court for departing from the sentencing guidelines which was that Miele was recently released from incarceration for the same offense which Miele now stands convicted is also invalid. See Gibson v. State, 553 So.2d 701 (Fla.1989).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for re-sentencing.

DOWNEY and POLEN, JJ., and » WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Giovanno Antonio Miele was tried by jury and duly convicted of certain drug offenses. While we affirm Miele’s convictions we reverse the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing. We agree with Miele’s assertion that because the offenses charged were committed in 1988, before the present habitual offender statute, under Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), he could not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment longer than that recommended by the guidelines. The state agrees with Miele’s position as just outlined. Further, the other reason asserted by the trial court for departing from the sentencing guidelines which was that Miele was recently released from incarceration for the same offense which Miele now stands convicted is also invalid. See Gibson v. State, 553 So.2d 701 (Fla.1989).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for re-sentencing.

DOWNEY and POLEN, JJ., and » WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 So. 2d 1104, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8398, 1991 WL 158576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miele-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack