State v. Brady

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Brady

517 So. 2d 794, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 181, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 96, 1988 WL 977

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 1988

DocketNos. 86-3204, 86-3207

StatusPublished

This text of 517 So. 2d 794 (State v. Brady) 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

State v. Brady, 517 So. 2d 794, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 181, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 96, 1988 WL 977 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon the defendant’s confession of error, the sentences imposed in this case, which departed downward from the sentencing guidelines, are reversed because there is no evidentiary support for either of the two reasons given by the trial court to justify the said departure, see State v. Chesney, 509 So.2d 380, 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Mitchell v. State, 507 So.2d 686, 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Medlock v. State, 489 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and the cause is therefore remanded to the trial court with directions (a) to allow the defendant, if he chooses, to withdraw his guilty plea to the charges against him inasmuch as he entered such a plea on the express condition that he would receive the sentence which we are reversing today, see State v. Thomas, 516 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Williams, 515 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Johnson, 512 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) or (b) to resentence the defendant within the sentencing guidelines if the defendant elects not to withdraw his guilty plea.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon the defendant’s confession of error, the sentences imposed in this case, which departed downward from the sentencing guidelines, are reversed because there is no evidentiary support for either of the two reasons given by the trial court to justify the said departure, see State v. Chesney, 509 So.2d 380, 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Mitchell v. State, 507 So.2d 686, 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Medlock v. State, 489 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and the cause is therefore remanded to the trial court with directions (a) to allow the defendant, if he chooses, to withdraw his guilty plea to the charges against him inasmuch as he entered such a plea on the express condition that he would receive the sentence which we are reversing today, see State v. Thomas, 516 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Williams, 515 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Johnson, 512 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) or (b) to resentence the defendant within the sentencing guidelines if the defendant elects not to withdraw his guilty plea.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 So. 2d 794, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 181, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 96, 1988 WL 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brady-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack