Stooksbury v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stooksbury v. State

495 So. 2d 845, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2127, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10034

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 7, 1986·No. No. 85-2673·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Where, as here, the presumptive sentence established by the sentencing guidelines included a “nonstate prison sanction,” and thus the permissible alternative of incarceration in the county jail, the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant was “an unsuitable candidate to be placed on probation again” is not a clear and convincing reason to deviate from the guidelines. Heston v. State, 490 So.2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Montgomery v. State, 489 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for sentencing within the guidelines.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Where, as here, the presumptive sentence established by the sentencing guidelines included a “nonstate prison sanction,” and thus the permissible alternative of incarceration in the county jail, the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant was “an unsuitable candidate to be placed on probation again” is not a clear and convincing reason to deviate from the guidelines. Heston v. State, 490 So.2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Montgomery v. State, 489 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for sentencing within the guidelines.

Reversed and remanded.

Stooksbury v. State, 495 So. 2d 845, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2127, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10034 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

495 So. 2d 845 (Stooksbury v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related