Street v. State

609 So. 2d 779, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13583, 1992 WL 385475
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 30, 1992·No. No. 92-0161·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction, but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. The trial court erred in sentencing appellant in excess of twenty-seven years without providing written reasons for departure. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.988(g). Because the trial court was under the impression that this case did not involve a departure sentence, it may consider on remand whether departure is appropriate, and, if so, shall set forth valid written reasons supporting departure. State v. Bentancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1989). See also Roberts v. State, 547 So.2d 129 (Fla.1989).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

[780]*780HERSEY and WARNER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

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

Street v. State, 609 So. 2d 779, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13583, 1992 WL 385475 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

609 So. 2d 779 (Street v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Street v. State
899 So. 2d 440 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)