Taylor v. State

518 So. 2d 977, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 249, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 151, 1988 WL 2613
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Taylor v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 11 Fla. L. Weekly 773
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 21, 1988·No. No. 87-698·Published

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

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

518 So. 2d 977 (Taylor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Jackson
478 So. 2d 1054 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Shull v. Dugger
515 So. 2d 748 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Taylor v. State
502 So. 2d 24 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)