Timonere v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Timonere v. State

631 So. 2d 1138, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1209, 1994 WL 46971

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 1994

DocketNos. 92-00602, 92-04340

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 631 So. 2d 1138 (Timonere 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

Timonere v. State, 631 So. 2d 1138, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1209, 1994 WL 46971 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

In this consolidated appeal, James M. Ti-monere challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and its imposition of a departure sentence without a contemporaneous statement of the reasons for departure. We find no merit in his claim that trial counsel was ineffective, and affirm the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief without discussion.

The trial court did, however, commit reversible error when it imposed a departure sentence without providing contemporaneous reasons for the departure at the sentencing hearing. See Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990), modified by State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla.1991); Barry v. State, 626 So.2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Hall v. State, 598 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we reverse Timonere’s sentences and remand for sentencing within the guidelines.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. •

PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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