State v. Hughes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Hughes

677 So. 2d 852, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12985, 1995 WL 746368

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 1995

DocketNo. 95-1198

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 677 So. 2d 852 (State v. Hughes) 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. Hughes, 677 So. 2d 852, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12985, 1995 WL 746368 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court sentenced the appellee to 5.375 years in prison, which term represented the minimum guideline sentence. On ap-pellee’s motion for modification of sentence, the trial court suspended the entire term. According to the trial court, “suspension [did] not take it outside of the guidelines sentence. It remains a guideline sentence.”

On appeal, the state asserts that this constituted a downward departure without written reasons, and that the trial court should be required to impose a guidelines sentence on remand. The appellee correctly concedes that the sentence must be reversed. See Fraser v. State, 602 So.2d 1299 (Fla.1992); Salemi v. State, 636 So.2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, the appellee argues that the trial court should be permitted to impose a departure sentence upon remand since the court was unaware it was imposing a departure sentence.

Where, as here, the record indicates that the trial court was not aware that a departure sentence had been imposed, the court may consider whether a departure sentence is appropriate on remand, and if so, the court must set forth valid reasons for the departure. Nelson v. State, 650 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for resentencing.

MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court sentenced the appellee to 5.375 years in prison, which term represented the minimum guideline sentence. On ap-pellee’s motion for modification of sentence, the trial court suspended the entire term. According to the trial court, “suspension [did] not take it outside of the guidelines sentence. It remains a guideline sentence.”

On appeal, the state asserts that this constituted a downward departure without written reasons, and that the trial court should be required to impose a guidelines sentence on remand. The appellee correctly concedes that the sentence must be reversed. See Fraser v. State, 602 So.2d 1299 (Fla.1992); Salemi v. State, 636 So.2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, the appellee argues that the trial court should be permitted to impose a departure sentence upon remand since the court was unaware it was imposing a departure sentence.

Where, as here, the record indicates that the trial court was not aware that a departure sentence had been imposed, the court may consider whether a departure sentence is appropriate on remand, and if so, the court must set forth valid reasons for the departure. Nelson v. State, 650 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for resentencing.

MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 So. 2d 852, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12985, 1995 WL 746368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hughes-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack