Sherman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sherman v. State

536 So. 2d 1133, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 155, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5657, 1988 WL 137188

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1988

DocketNo. 87-675

StatusPublished

This text of 536 So. 2d 1133 (Sherman 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

Sherman v. State, 536 So. 2d 1133, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 155, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5657, 1988 WL 137188 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James Lewis Sherman, challenges the judgment and sentence entered by the trial court after this court, in a previous decision, reversed the appellant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. In Sherman v. State, 500 So.2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), we reversed the trial court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines because the only reason given for departure was invalid. On remand, the trial court enunciated a new reason for departure and imposed the same sentence. We agree with the appellant’s contention that the trial court’s actions were not permitted and, accordingly, reverse the departure sentence imposed and remand for resen-tencing within the guidelines range. See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987).

Since the appellant’s guidelines score-sheet does not recommend a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum, we decline to address his contention that the trial court erred in finding him a habitual offender. We find no merit in the other issues raised and, therefore, affirm in all other respects.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James Lewis Sherman, challenges the judgment and sentence entered by the trial court after this court, in a previous decision, reversed the appellant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. In Sherman v. State, 500 So.2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), we reversed the trial court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines because the only reason given for departure was invalid. On remand, the trial court enunciated a new reason for departure and imposed the same sentence. We agree with the appellant’s contention that the trial court’s actions were not permitted and, accordingly, reverse the departure sentence imposed and remand for resen-tencing within the guidelines range. See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987).

Since the appellant’s guidelines score-sheet does not recommend a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum, we decline to address his contention that the trial court erred in finding him a habitual offender. We find no merit in the other issues raised and, therefore, affirm in all other respects.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

536 So. 2d 1133, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 155, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5657, 1988 WL 137188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack