Saavedra v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Saavedra v. State

478 So. 2d 479, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2527, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16749

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 479 (Saavedra 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

Saavedra v. State, 478 So. 2d 479, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2527, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16749 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

LETTS, Judge.

The Petition for Rehearing is granted. The original opinion is withdrawn and we substitute the following:

This cause is affirmed. At the conclusion of the trial, appellant elected to postpone a decision on sentencing under the guidelines. At the sentencing hearing in August of 1984, he elected to be sentenced under the guidelines in effect before the July 1, 1984, amendment. He is unable to do so because either the guidelines in existence on the date of the commission of the crime or those in existence on the day of sentencing apply. See Miller v. State, 468 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In this case, there were no guidelines in existence on the date the crime took place so that the defendant could only be sentenced according to the guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing. Cone v. State, 469 So.2d 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The alternative would be to be sentenced outside the guidelines altogether, an option which the defendant did not exercise.

DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

LETTS, Judge.

The Petition for Rehearing is granted. The original opinion is withdrawn and we substitute the following:

This cause is affirmed. At the conclusion of the trial, appellant elected to postpone a decision on sentencing under the guidelines. At the sentencing hearing in August of 1984, he elected to be sentenced under the guidelines in effect before the July 1, 1984, amendment. He is unable to do so because either the guidelines in existence on the date of the commission of the crime or those in existence on the day of sentencing apply. See Miller v. State, 468 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In this case, there were no guidelines in existence on the date the crime took place so that the defendant could only be sentenced according to the guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing. Cone v. State, 469 So.2d 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The alternative would be to be sentenced outside the guidelines altogether, an option which the defendant did not exercise.

DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 479, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2527, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saavedra-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack