State v. Honiker

675 So. 2d 681, 1996 WL 332922
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 19, 1996
Docket95-03828
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 675 So. 2d 681 (State v. Honiker) 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. Honiker, 675 So. 2d 681, 1996 WL 332922 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

675 So.2d 681 (1996)

STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Justin W. HONIKER, Appellee.

No. 95-03828.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 19, 1996.

*682 Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Assistant Public Defender, Clearwater, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals the trial court's downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The trial court checked off the following reason on the sentencing guidelines form: "Defendant requires specialized treatment for addiction, mental disorder, or physical disability and the defendant is amenable to treatment." See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.990; § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). There is no evidence in the record to support this sole reason for departure. Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Honiker's sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines. Because Mr. Honiker's sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement with the trial court,[1] on remand he should be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. State v. Cohen, 667 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] While a "legitimate, uncoerced plea bargain" is generally a valid reason to depart from the guidelines, the state did not join with the trial court and Mr. Honiker in the plea bargain reached in this case and is not bound by it.

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

Related

State v. PITA
54 So. 3d 557 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
State v. Demille
890 So. 2d 454 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
State v. Hurley
772 So. 2d 594 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
State v. Arvinger
751 So. 2d 74 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
State v. Gitto
731 So. 2d 686 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
State v. Abrams
706 So. 2d 903 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
State v. Kennedy
698 So. 2d 349 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
State v. Morrow
700 So. 2d 391 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
675 So. 2d 681, 1996 WL 332922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-honiker-fladistctapp-1996.