Wright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. State

633 So. 2d 1204, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3024, 1994 WL 101274

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2876

StatusPublished

This text of 633 So. 2d 1204 (Wright 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

Wright v. State, 633 So. 2d 1204, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3024, 1994 WL 101274 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues, and the state concedes, that appellant’s nine year sentence, which is the maximum under the permitted range, is error because sentencing within the permitted range without written reason rather than the recommended range was not a part of the statute at the time he committed his offense. See DeAngelis v. State, 605 So.2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Smith v. State, 582 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see generally Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). Accordingly, this case is remanded for the trial court to resentence appellant within the recommended guidelines range which was in effect at the time of his offense. The record reflects that appellant and the state agree that 5½ years to 7 years is the applicable range.

GUNTHER, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues, and the state concedes, that appellant’s nine year sentence, which is the maximum under the permitted range, is error because sentencing within the permitted range without written reason rather than the recommended range was not a part of the statute at the time he committed his offense. See DeAngelis v. State, 605 So.2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Smith v. State, 582 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see generally Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). Accordingly, this case is remanded for the trial court to resentence appellant within the recommended guidelines range which was in effect at the time of his offense. The record reflects that appellant and the state agree that 5½ years to 7 years is the applicable range.

GUNTHER, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 So. 2d 1204, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3024, 1994 WL 101274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack