TIMOTHY VANHORN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1989-07-11
No. 89-216
Before HUBBART and BASKIN and LEVY, JJ.
545 So. 2d 971 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1989)

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case involving a defendant sentenced under amended guidelines and later resentenced with a departure sentence, examining the validity of that departure.


Holding

A departure sentence is permissible on remand if the trial court erroneously believed it was imposing a sentence within the guidelines while giving no reasons for a de facto upward departure, and at least one valid reason exists for the departure.


Facts & Procedural History

Timothy Vanhorn was charged with offenses committed before sentencing guideline amendments but sentenced after their effective date. The trial court i…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the state’s commendable concession that the sentences appealed from in this case are, in effect, invalid under this court’s decision in Harrison v. State, 523 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) 1 the sen- fences under review are therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to resentence the defendant Timothy Vanhorn within the sentencing guidelines range of 5¾⅛ to 7 years imprisonment.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

. The state, however, disagrees with Harrison and reserves the right to seek further review of the decision we reach herein. We certify that our decision is "in direct conflict with ... decision[s] of [ ] other district court[s] of appeal” in Brown v. State, 535 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Dyer v. State, 534 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); and Waldron v. State, 529 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), so as to permit further review by the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw