Taylor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Taylor v. State

518 So. 2d 977, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 249, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 151, 1988 WL 2613

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 21, 1988

DocketNo. 87-698

StatusPublished

This text of 518 So. 2d 977 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. State, 518 So. 2d 977, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 249, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 151, 1988 WL 2613 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the second time this case has been before this court on appeal from a departure sentence. See Taylor v. State, 502 So.2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Again there is no written statement from the trial court delineating the reasons for departure. It is reversible error to impose a departure sentence under the sentencing guidelines without an accompanying written statement delineating reasons for departure. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)ll.; State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). The defendant must now be resentenced within the recommended guidelines range because the original reason for departure, the defendant’s habitual offender status, was invalid. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987). Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand this case for imposition of a sentence within the recommended guidelines range.

SENTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is the second time this case has been before this court on appeal from a departure sentence. See Taylor v. State, 502 So.2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Again there is no written statement from the trial court delineating the reasons for departure. It is reversible error to impose a departure sentence under the sentencing guidelines without an accompanying written statement delineating reasons for departure. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)ll.; State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). The defendant must now be resentenced within the recommended guidelines range because the original reason for departure, the defendant’s habitual offender status, was invalid. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987). Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand this case for imposition of a sentence within the recommended guidelines range.

SENTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 So. 2d 977, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 249, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 151, 1988 WL 2613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack