Tackett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tackett v. State

458 So. 2d 368, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2304, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15699

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 26, 1984

DocketNo. 84-558

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 458 So. 2d 368 (Tackett v. State) 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

Tackett v. State, 458 So. 2d 368, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2304, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15699 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises various contentions concerning his sentence of thirty months for battery on a law enforcement officer. We find merit in one of those contentions.

The trial court departed from the presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines apparently due to the revocation of appellant’s probation. However, no reasons therefor were given either in writing or in the transcript of the hearing. Rule 3.701 Fla.R.Crim.P. was amended to provide that no reason need be given for increasing the presumptive sentence under the guidelines to the next higher cell by reason of revocation of probation. However, the amendment was not adopted until after the sentencing of appellant here. See Carter v. State, 452 So.2d 953, 954 n.3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Accordingly, there was a failure to comply with rule 3.701(d)(ll) requiring written reasons for departures from the guidelines.

Therefore, we remand for resentencing not inconsistent with this opinion.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises various contentions concerning his sentence of thirty months for battery on a law enforcement officer. We find merit in one of those contentions.

The trial court departed from the presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines apparently due to the revocation of appellant’s probation. However, no reasons therefor were given either in writing or in the transcript of the hearing. Rule 3.701 Fla.R.Crim.P. was amended to provide that no reason need be given for increasing the presumptive sentence under the guidelines to the next higher cell by reason of revocation of probation. However, the amendment was not adopted until after the sentencing of appellant here. See Carter v. State, 452 So.2d 953, 954 n.3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Accordingly, there was a failure to comply with rule 3.701(d)(ll) requiring written reasons for departures from the guidelines.

Therefore, we remand for resentencing not inconsistent with this opinion.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 So. 2d 368, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2304, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tackett-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack