State v. Matlock

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Matlock

544 So. 2d 244, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1117, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2388, 1989 WL 45400

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 1989

DocketNo. 88-00761

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 544 So. 2d 244 (State v. Matlock) 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. Matlock, 544 So. 2d 244, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1117, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2388, 1989 WL 45400 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

Appellee Matlock pleaded guilty to burglary of a dwelling and battering an occupant therein (Count I) and petit theft (Count II). At sentencing, the trial judge departed downward from the recommended guidelines range based on appellee’s age of 17 and his minimal prior record. The state [245]*245appealed, claiming that the reasons for departure were invalid. We reverse.

Neither of the reasons set forth by the trial court are valid. The defendant’s prior record was included in his guidelines score, so it cannot be considered as a basis for departure. See State v. Davis, 537 So.2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Nor may the defendant’s age, standing alone, support departure. State v. Riley, 530 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Because neither of the trial court’s reasons for departure were valid, we reverse and remand for sentencing within the recommended range.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

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

PATTERSON, Judge.

Appellee Matlock pleaded guilty to burglary of a dwelling and battering an occupant therein (Count I) and petit theft (Count II). At sentencing, the trial judge departed downward from the recommended guidelines range based on appellee’s age of 17 and his minimal prior record. The state [245]*245appealed, claiming that the reasons for departure were invalid. We reverse.

Neither of the reasons set forth by the trial court are valid. The defendant’s prior record was included in his guidelines score, so it cannot be considered as a basis for departure. See State v. Davis, 537 So.2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Nor may the defendant’s age, standing alone, support departure. State v. Riley, 530 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Because neither of the trial court’s reasons for departure were valid, we reverse and remand for sentencing within the recommended range.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 244, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1117, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2388, 1989 WL 45400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-matlock-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack