Sheffield v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sheffield v. State

468 So. 2d 441, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1112, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13809

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 3, 1985·No. No. 84-2174·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the revocation of appellant’s probation is affirmed. However, since there appears to be some misapprehension on the subject, we wish to point out that appellant’s sentences which were imposed on September 20, 1984, were not under the sentencing guidelines because his crimes were committed prior to October 1, 1983, and he did not affirmatively select to be sentenced under the guidelines. See Heathcoat v. State, 463 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Rodriguez v. State, 458 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the revocation of appellant’s probation is affirmed. However, since there appears to be some misapprehension on the subject, we wish to point out that appellant’s sentences which were imposed on September 20, 1984, were not under the sentencing guidelines because his crimes were committed prior to October 1, 1983, and he did not affirmatively select to be sentenced under the guidelines. See Heathcoat v. State, 463 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Rodriguez v. State, 458 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Sheffield v. State, 468 So. 2d 441, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1112, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13809 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

468 So. 2d 441 (Sheffield v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related