Migilore v. State
This text of 550 So. 2d 163 (Migilore 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.
Opinion
This cause is before us on appeal from a departure sentence. The only statement of the reasons for departure is found in the guideline scoresheet and states:
He is an habitual offender in that he has no respect for the property of others and has committed heinous crimes while awaiting sentence on this crime. He shows no remorse.
None of the reasons listed on the score-sheet is sufficient for departure from the guidelines. Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1987); Hill v. State, 498 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Aleman v. State, 498 So.2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Bradley v. State, 509 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); State v, Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986); Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Rease v. State, 485 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Pendleton v. State, 493 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Sarvis v. State, 465 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s sentence and remand the case for resen-tencing within the guidelines.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
550 So. 2d 163, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2457, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5897, 1989 WL 124589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/migilore-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.