JOHN HENRY ALBURY, 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 held that a sentence outside the guidelines requires written findings to justify the departure.
Appellant was convicted of drug possession in a second trial after a prior conviction was reversed. The reimposed sentence was outside the guidelines …
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 Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, John Henry Albury, appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine and marijuana. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
This is appellant’s second trial on the same charges, a prior conviction having been reversed in Albury v. State, 541 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). After being convicted again, appellant was sentenced to a term outside the guidelines by the reimposition of the old sentence. No written reasons were provided for the newly imposed sentence.
The State correctly concedes that appellant was improperly sentenced to a term outside the guidelines without written findings to justify the departure. See Padgett v. State, 534 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for sentencing within the guidelines. See Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). Finding no merit in appellant’s other contentions, we affirm his conviction in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Benton, 662 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (where defendant did not seek further relief following court’s sustaining objection to prosecutor’s improper comment new trial order reversed); see Puentes v. State, 658 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Escobedo v. State, 561 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); cf. Spencer v. State, 645 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1994) (where defendant objected, requested a mistrial, but did not request a curative instruction issue of improper prosecutorial closing argument preserved). Furthermore, assuming that t…
-
MacARTHUR v. State, 668 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…9); Tompkins v. State, 502 So. 2d 415, 419 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1033, 107 S.Ct. 3277, 97 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987); Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639, 641 (Fla.1982); Pierre v. State, 597 So. 2d 853, 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Escobedo v. State, 561 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); [*693] Broge v. State, 288 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 295 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 845, 95 S.Ct. 79, 42 L.Ed.2d 74 (1974).…
-
Rivera v. 18100 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr., Ltd., 783 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Escobedo v. State, 561 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Padgett v. State, 534 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Noda v. State, 534 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Albury v. State, 541 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)