State v. Forehand

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Forehand

507 So. 2d 802, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1344, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8456

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1657

StatusPublished

This text of 507 So. 2d 802 (State v. Forehand) 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. Forehand, 507 So. 2d 802, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1344, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8456 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARP, Judge.

The state appeals the sentence imposed on Forehand after he negotiated a plea and pled nolo contendere to grand theft,¹ burglary of a dwelling,² and petit theft.³ The parties had stipulated Forehand would be sentenced to two and one-half to three years with the condition there be no consecutive probation. Instead, the trial court departed downward and sentenced Forehand respectively on the three charges to one year and one day, fifteen years concurrent probation and time served.

The trial judge listed seven reasons for the downward departure, the first three of which are invalid. See Lerma, v. State, 497 So.2d 736 (Fla.1986); State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986); Dowling v. State, 496 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Taylor, 482 So.2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We make no comment as to the validity of the remaining four reasons because there is no clear authority on these issues. Since it is not clear that, absent the invalid reasons the trial court would have imposed the same sentence, we must reverse and remand. Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER. and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

SHARP, Judge.

The state appeals the sentence imposed on Forehand after he negotiated a plea and pled nolo contendere to grand theft,¹ burglary of a dwelling,² and petit theft.³ The parties had stipulated Forehand would be sentenced to two and one-half to three years with the condition there be no consecutive probation. Instead, the trial court departed downward and sentenced Forehand respectively on the three charges to one year and one day, fifteen years concurrent probation and time served.

The trial judge listed seven reasons for the downward departure, the first three of which are invalid. See Lerma, v. State, 497 So.2d 736 (Fla.1986); State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986); Dowling v. State, 496 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Taylor, 482 So.2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We make no comment as to the validity of the remaining four reasons because there is no clear authority on these issues. Since it is not clear that, absent the invalid reasons the trial court would have imposed the same sentence, we must reverse and remand. Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER. and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 So. 2d 802, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1344, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-forehand-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack