Sanchious v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sanchious v. State

478 So. 2d 1191, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2636, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17105

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 29, 1985

DocketNo. 85-374

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 1191 (Sanchious 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

Sanchious v. State, 478 So. 2d 1191, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2636, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17105 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARP, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentencing for sexual battery¹ and false imprisonment.² There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, and as to this point we affirm. However, the “departure” sentence ³ imposed in this case must be vacated.

Appellant contends his sentence was enhanced for legally impermissible reasons. The trial court filed a seven-page document detailing numerous reasons for enhancing appellant’s sentence. Several of the reasons given have been held to be invalid justification for deviating from the sentencing guidelines.⁴ When both valid and invalid reasons are relied upon by a trial court to enhance a defendant’s sentence, an appellate court must reverse unless it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial judge’s sentence was not affected by the invalid reasons.⁵ Here, that burden is not met. We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

VACATE SENTENCE AND REMAND.

COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

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

SHARP, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentencing for sexual battery¹ and false imprisonment.² There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, and as to this point we affirm. However, the “departure” sentence ³ imposed in this case must be vacated.

Appellant contends his sentence was enhanced for legally impermissible reasons. The trial court filed a seven-page document detailing numerous reasons for enhancing appellant’s sentence. Several of the reasons given have been held to be invalid justification for deviating from the sentencing guidelines.⁴ When both valid and invalid reasons are relied upon by a trial court to enhance a defendant’s sentence, an appellate court must reverse unless it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial judge’s sentence was not affected by the invalid reasons.⁵ Here, that burden is not met. We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

VACATE SENTENCE AND REMAND.

COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 1191, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2636, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchious-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack