Souter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Souter v. State

576 So. 2d 431, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2424, 1991 WL 35990

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 21, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1594

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 431 (Souter 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

Souter v. State, 576 So. 2d 431, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2424, 1991 WL 35990 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a sentence. Because the sentencing court erred, both procedurally, by not giving timely written reasons for a departure sentence, and substantively, by not giving legally sufficient written reasons for the departure sentence, we vacate the sentence for escape and remand for a proper guideline sentence. Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990); State v. Brown, 530 So.2d 51 (Fla.1988); Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). Appellant’s argument regarding other sentences and his classification as an habitual offender as to those is without merit. King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1990). We affirm the robbery sentences.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED.

PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a sentence. Because the sentencing court erred, both procedurally, by not giving timely written reasons for a departure sentence, and substantively, by not giving legally sufficient written reasons for the departure sentence, we vacate the sentence for escape and remand for a proper guideline sentence. Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990); State v. Brown, 530 So.2d 51 (Fla.1988); Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). Appellant’s argument regarding other sentences and his classification as an habitual offender as to those is without merit. King v. State, 557 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1990). We affirm the robbery sentences.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED.

PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 431, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2424, 1991 WL 35990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/souter-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack