Rivers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rivers v. State

513 So. 2d 766, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2374, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10512

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1987

DocketNo. BS-152

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 766 (Rivers 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

Rivers v. State, 513 So. 2d 766, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2374, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10512 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his sentence because it was entered without a guidelines score sheet and because the aggregate term of incarceration and probation exceeded the statutory maximum. After appellant’s initial brief was filed, appellee filed a motion to relinquish jurisdiction so that the trial court could correct the errors raised in appellant’s brief. Thereafter, appellee was ordered to show cause why the motion to relinquish jurisdiction should not be construed as a confession of error, to which this court received no response. Although the procedure followed by this court in the case of obvious guidelines sentencing errors may vary from case to case, it is likely that the court will find it advisable to simply reverse and remand to the trial court for resentencing, thus eliminating the procedure of issuing a show cause order as was done here. See Hope v. State, 513 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Accordingly, appellant’s sentence is vacated and this cause is remanded for resen-tencing.

SMITH, C.J., and SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his sentence because it was entered without a guidelines score sheet and because the aggregate term of incarceration and probation exceeded the statutory maximum. After appellant’s initial brief was filed, appellee filed a motion to relinquish jurisdiction so that the trial court could correct the errors raised in appellant’s brief. Thereafter, appellee was ordered to show cause why the motion to relinquish jurisdiction should not be construed as a confession of error, to which this court received no response. Although the procedure followed by this court in the case of obvious guidelines sentencing errors may vary from case to case, it is likely that the court will find it advisable to simply reverse and remand to the trial court for resentencing, thus eliminating the procedure of issuing a show cause order as was done here. See Hope v. State, 513 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Accordingly, appellant’s sentence is vacated and this cause is remanded for resen-tencing.

SMITH, C.J., and SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 766, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2374, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivers-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack