State v. Howell

611 So. 2d 5, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12503, 1992 WL 362208
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 10, 1992
DocketNo. 91-1677
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 611 So. 2d 5 (State v. Howell) 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. Howell, 611 So. 2d 5, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12503, 1992 WL 362208 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state challenges a downward departure sentence that was imposed without regard to the requirements of Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990). Specifically, the trial court failed to issue contemporaneous written reasons when it sentenced appellee to community control and a term of probation; appellee’s guidelines scoresheet recommended 7 to 9 years in prison.1 We agree that the trial court’s delay necessitates a remand for resentencing with no possibility of departure from the guidelines. See Fraser v. State, 602 So.2d 1299 (Fla.1992); Owens v. State, 598 So.2d 64 (Fla.1992); Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990). However, appellee’s sentence must not exceed the statutory maximum. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)10. On remand, we alert the trial court to Fraser, supra, which allows credit for time served on community control.

The challenged sentence is vacated, and the cause remanded for resentencing.

SMITH, WIGGINTON and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Schank
625 So. 2d 999 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
611 So. 2d 5, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12503, 1992 WL 362208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-howell-fladistctapp-1992.