Rodrique v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodrique v. State

533 So. 2d 931, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2534, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5081, 1988 WL 122620

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1988

DocketNo. 88-754

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 533 So. 2d 931 (Rodrique 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

Rodrique v. State, 533 So. 2d 931, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2534, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5081, 1988 WL 122620 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because only two of the six reasons given for departure from the sentencing guidelines are valid, and because the crime was committed prior to the effective date of Section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes, this case must be remanded for a determination whether the same sentence would have been imposed if only the two valid reasons for departure were considered. Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1985). We conclude that the following reasons are valid: the professional manner employed in the commission of a crime (paragraphs 2 and 5 read in conjunction [932]*932with one another), see Martin v. State, 523 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and the timing of the crime in relation to prior offenses and release from incarceration or supervision (paragraph 4). See Stubbs v. State, 522 So.2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987). The remaining reasons given are invalid because either the facts supporting them are too speculative or the law does not support them.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ERVIN, WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because only two of the six reasons given for departure from the sentencing guidelines are valid, and because the crime was committed prior to the effective date of Section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes, this case must be remanded for a determination whether the same sentence would have been imposed if only the two valid reasons for departure were considered. Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1985). We conclude that the following reasons are valid: the professional manner employed in the commission of a crime (paragraphs 2 and 5 read in conjunction [932]*932with one another), see Martin v. State, 523 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and the timing of the crime in relation to prior offenses and release from incarceration or supervision (paragraph 4). See Stubbs v. State, 522 So.2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987). The remaining reasons given are invalid because either the facts supporting them are too speculative or the law does not support them.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ERVIN, WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 So. 2d 931, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2534, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5081, 1988 WL 122620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodrique-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack