Perdieu v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perdieu v. State

513 So. 2d 1333, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2381, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12255

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1987

DocketNo. 87-0043

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 1333 (Perdieu 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

Perdieu v. State, 513 So. 2d 1333, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2381, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12255 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of robbery with a weapon and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment, a departure from the seven to nine years recommended guideline sentence.

[1334]*1334Of appellant’s three appellate points, only one requires discussion, i.e., the asserted error in departing from the guidelines. Four grounds were set forth justifying the departure. However, only one of them is a valid ground, i.e., during the commission of the offense appellant used force in excess of that required by holding the knife at Erenstoft’s [the victim] throat, jabbing, and ultimately cutting the victim’s throat as he struggled to protect himself. The court relied upon Sabb v. State, 479 So.2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and Smith v. State, 454 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which adequately support his finding and holding.

Accordingly, we affirm the case in all respects except the sentence and remand that aspect of the case to the trial court pursuant to Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

DOWNEY, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of robbery with a weapon and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment, a departure from the seven to nine years recommended guideline sentence.

[1334]*1334Of appellant’s three appellate points, only one requires discussion, i.e., the asserted error in departing from the guidelines. Four grounds were set forth justifying the departure. However, only one of them is a valid ground, i.e., during the commission of the offense appellant used force in excess of that required by holding the knife at Erenstoft’s [the victim] throat, jabbing, and ultimately cutting the victim’s throat as he struggled to protect himself. The court relied upon Sabb v. State, 479 So.2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and Smith v. State, 454 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which adequately support his finding and holding.

Accordingly, we affirm the case in all respects except the sentence and remand that aspect of the case to the trial court pursuant to Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

DOWNEY, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 1333, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2381, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perdieu-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack