Parrado v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parrado v. State

582 So. 2d 146, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6558, 1991 WL 120773

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1691

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 582 So. 2d 146 (Parrado 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

Parrado v. State, 582 So. 2d 146, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6558, 1991 WL 120773 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his sentence of two consecutive fifteen year terms on cocaine trafficking and related convictions. The defendant’s guidelines sentence scored out to a minimum mandatory term of fifteen years or to a guidelines sentence of twelve to seventeen years. The trial judge sentenced defendant to a total of thirty years, stating at the bottom of the guidelines score sheet that written reasons for depar[147]*147ture would be submitted by separate order. However, no written reasons were ever entered.

We vacate the sentence based on Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990), which held that in the absence of a written departure order, the case is to be remanded for resen-tencing of the defendant within the guidelines. We recognize that the sentencing here occurred on May 2, 1988, which was before Pope was announced and before the related case of Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), was handed down. This court has held that Pope applies retroactively, but has consistently certified the question. See Fonseca v. State, 570 So.2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Perez v. State, 566 So.2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We again certify the question of whether Pope should be applied retroactively.

Accordingly, we remand for sentencing within the guidelines but stay the mandate pending the supreme court’s answer of the certified question.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his sentence of two consecutive fifteen year terms on cocaine trafficking and related convictions. The defendant’s guidelines sentence scored out to a minimum mandatory term of fifteen years or to a guidelines sentence of twelve to seventeen years. The trial judge sentenced defendant to a total of thirty years, stating at the bottom of the guidelines score sheet that written reasons for depar[147]*147ture would be submitted by separate order. However, no written reasons were ever entered.

We vacate the sentence based on Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990), which held that in the absence of a written departure order, the case is to be remanded for resen-tencing of the defendant within the guidelines. We recognize that the sentencing here occurred on May 2, 1988, which was before Pope was announced and before the related case of Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), was handed down. This court has held that Pope applies retroactively, but has consistently certified the question. See Fonseca v. State, 570 So.2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Perez v. State, 566 So.2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We again certify the question of whether Pope should be applied retroactively.

Accordingly, we remand for sentencing within the guidelines but stay the mandate pending the supreme court’s answer of the certified question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 So. 2d 146, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6558, 1991 WL 120773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrado-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack