Miller v. State

501 So. 2d 757, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 440, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6718
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 10 Fla. L. Weekly 989
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 5, 1987·No. No. 86-969·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Miller appeals his conviction of burglary of a dwelling with a battery1 and his sentence which resulted in a four-bracket departure beyond the presumptive sentence recommended by the guidelines.2 We affirm the conviction, but vacate the sentence.

The sole reason for the departure in this case was Miller’s habitual offender status. This is no longer a valid reason to impose a departure sentence under the guidelines.3 Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

AFFIRM CONVICTION; VACATE SENTENCE AND REMAND FOR RE-SENTENCING.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

Miller v. State, 501 So. 2d 757, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 440, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6718 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

501 So. 2d 757 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whitehead v. State
498 So. 2d 863 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Neeley v. State
498 So. 2d 690 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)