JOSE MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
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 appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence due to the trial court's failure to provide written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines.
Appellant was charged with drug offenses and moved to suppress seized cocaine. The trial court denied the motion and appellant was sentenced to a term…
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 Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. He filed a motion to suppress the cocaine that had been seized. The trial court denied the motion and appellant entered a plea of nolo conten-dere, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion.
The trial court dismissed the possession of cocaine with intent to sell charge. Appellant’s recommended guidelines sentence was any nonstate prison sanction. The trial court sentenced appellant to five years’ incarceration, but failed to enter any written reasons for its departure from the recommended guidelines sentence. This appeal challenges the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and the subsequent sentence imposed.
We have reviewed the record and considered the applicable case law and statutes, as well as the arguments in the briefs submitted as to the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction.
In sentencing appellant, the trial court erred in failing to enter written reasons for departure. Nichols v. State, 521 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We must reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines recommended range. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions.
HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)…sult only with ah opinion, in which GRIMES, J., concurs. . We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. . See, e.g., Rangel v. State, 532 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Jenkins v. State, 528 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Martinez v. State, 526 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Crigler v. State, 526 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Nichols v. State, 521 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Jones v. State, 502 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). . See, e.g., State v. Simmons, 539 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Stat…
-
Trg-Brickell Pointe NE, Ltd. v. Mariano Gravante, 76 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…an instrument of conveyance of property, the statute does not apply. Thus, the trial court’s reason for denying the motion for reconsideration was contrary to Florida law. See Free v. Free, 936 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Benasutti v. Costalas, 526 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Rosenthal v. Finger & Margolis, P.A., 460 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Con-Dev of Vero Beach, Inc. v. Casano, 272 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). As we find the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for rec…
Authorities Cited
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Nichols v. State, 521 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)