MARCO FERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida affirmed convictions for grand theft, unlawful firearm possession, and carrying a concealed firearm, holding that an investigatory stop by show of force complied with Fourth Amendment standards and that the evidence obtained was lawfully seized.
An investigatory stop by show of force did not violate Fourth Amendment standards under the circumstances, and therefore evidence obtained from the stop was lawfully seized.
[1] Violation of probation or community control conditions is sufficient to justify an upward departure from sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant violated conditions of a community control program by failing to be at an approved residence at a prescribed time and by burning an automobi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fourth Amendment Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the convictions for grand theft, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and carrying a concealed firearm on a holding that the initial investigatory stop of appellant by show of force did not, under the circumstances, violate fourth amendment standards and that, therefore, the contraband initially surrendered by appellant and other incriminating evidence subsequently discovered by police officers were not illegally obtained.
Appellant violated the conditions of a community control program which led to the subject convictions. The violations included (1) failure to be at an approved residence at a prescribed time, and (2) burning of an automobile which the police were seeking as evidence in a homicide investigation. The court enhanced the sentence giving three reasons, most important of which was the destruction of homicide evidence. That reason alone sufficiently supports the upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. See Steiner v. State, 469 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (violation of probation is sufficient to justify departure); Klapp v. State, 456 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (same); see also Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37, 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (deviation is proper where crime is odious and repugnant). We note, however, that one of the reasons assigned as a basis for departure is invalid. Nevertheless, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reason would not have affected the departure sentence. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Steiner v. State, 469 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Klapp v. State, 456 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)