Patterson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Patterson v. State

520 So. 2d 703, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 554, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 718, 1988 WL 15494

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 2, 1988

DocketNo. 85-906

StatusPublished

This text of 520 So. 2d 703 (Patterson 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

Patterson v. State, 520 So. 2d 703, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 554, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 718, 1988 WL 15494 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed. See Patterson v. State, 486 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Florida, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, disapproved our decision and remanded to us for further consideration consistent with its opinion. See Patterson v. State, 513 So.2d 1263 (Fla.1987).

We have considered the matter, reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing within the recommended range of the guidelines as they existed at the time of the offense. See Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986) (trial court directed to resentence within the recommended range of the guidelines where reasons advanced for departure failed to justify it); Carter v. State, 485 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed. See Patterson v. State, 486 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Florida, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, disapproved our decision and remanded to us for further consideration consistent with its opinion. See Patterson v. State, 513 So.2d 1263 (Fla.1987).

We have considered the matter, reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing within the recommended range of the guidelines as they existed at the time of the offense. See Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986) (trial court directed to resentence within the recommended range of the guidelines where reasons advanced for departure failed to justify it); Carter v. State, 485 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 So. 2d 703, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 554, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 718, 1988 WL 15494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack