State v. Siddal

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Siddal

728 So. 2d 363, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3428, 1999 WL 157087

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 24, 1999·No. No. 98-1354·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although we understand the trial court’s intentions in imposing a downward departure sentence, the State’s position is correct and the downward departure is not legally sustainable. As a consequence, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for resentenc-ing within the sentencing guidelines. See State v. Whiting, 711 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although we understand the trial court’s intentions in imposing a downward departure sentence, the State’s position is correct and the downward departure is not legally sustainable. As a consequence, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for resentenc-ing within the sentencing guidelines. See State v. Whiting, 711 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

State v. Siddal, 728 So. 2d 363, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3428, 1999 WL 157087 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

728 So. 2d 363 (State v. Siddal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related