RAUL JIMENEZ A/K/A JOSE MATEO, 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.
The court affirmed the probation revocation but reversed the sentence because the trial judge relied on invalid reasons for departing from the presumptive sentence, requiring resentencing.
A trial court's departure from a presumptive sentence based partly on invalid reasons requires reversal and resentencing when the appellate court cannot be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the same sentence would have been imposed regardless.
[1] When a trial court departs from a presumptive sentence based on both valid and invalid reasons, reversal and resentencing are required if the appellate court cannot be co…
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's probation was revoked and he was sentenced with a departure from the presumptive sentence.…
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 Departure From Presumptive Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal; we find a sufficient factual basis to support the trial court’s revocation of the appellant’s probation. See Evans v. State, 427 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Kord v. State, 361 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). However, we do find a sentencing error. In imposing sentence in the instant case, the trial judge departed from the presumptive sentence for several invalid reasons, see Keyes v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1986); Lerma v. State, 497 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1986); Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla.1986); Scurry v. State, 489 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1986); Hankey v. State, 485 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1986); Hendsbee v. State, 497 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Chandler v. State, 490 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), as well as some valid reasons. Since we are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that notwithstanding the trial court's reliance on these invalid reasons for departure it would have imposed the same sentence, we reverse the sentence imposed and return for resentencing. See Casteel v. State, 498 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1986); Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing consistent herewith.
Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Scurry v. State, 489 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1986)
- Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1986)
- Ervin Sharp v. State, 497 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Casteel v. State, 498 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1986)
- Hankey v. State, 485 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1986)
- Kord v. State, 361 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Evans v. State, 427 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)