Zinnermon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zinnermon v. State

511 So. 2d 716, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2063, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10012

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 21, 1987·No. No. 86-294·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant attacks both his judgment and sentence in this appeal. We affirm the judgment. However, we find merit in the point attacking the sentence.

The trial court exceeded the guidelines for the sole reason that appellant was an habitual offender. Subsequent to the sentencing herein, the Florida Supreme Court decided Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), holding that a departure based on habitual offender status is invalid.

[717] Consequently, we reverse the sentence herein and remand for resentencing within the guidelines. Otherwise, affirmed.

DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant attacks both his judgment and sentence in this appeal. We affirm the judgment. However, we find merit in the point attacking the sentence.

The trial court exceeded the guidelines for the sole reason that appellant was an habitual offender. Subsequent to the sentencing herein, the Florida Supreme Court decided Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), holding that a departure based on habitual offender status is invalid.

[717] Consequently, we reverse the sentence herein and remand for resentencing within the guidelines. Otherwise, affirmed.

DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Zinnermon v. State, 511 So. 2d 716, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2063, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10012 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

511 So. 2d 716 (Zinnermon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related