EDMOND BORIS SHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1986-07-09
Nos. 85-1395, 85-1440
GRIMES, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
490 So. 2d 1354 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1986) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the appellant's statements but did err in departing from sentencing guidelines without written reasons.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant challenged the admission of his statements to officers and his sentence, which departed from the guidelines. The trial court had not yet ben…

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
SANDERLIN, Judge.

SANDERLIN, Judge.

In these appeals, which the court has consolidated on its own motion, appellant challenges the admission into evidence of certain statements he made to investigating officers. He also challenges his sentence, which represented a departure from the guidelines.

We have reviewed the record and relevant case law and find the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence any of appellant’s statements to investigating officers. Appellant’s convictions, therefore, are affirmed.

We do, however, find the trial court erred in sentencing appellant. In both cases, the trial court departed from the recommended guidelines range without setting forth written reasons. At the time of sentencing, the trial court did not have the benefit of the supreme court’s decision in State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985), which requires the trial court to set forth in writing its reasons for departure. Because the sentencing transcript reveals both permissible and impermissible reasons for departure, see Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), we reverse appellant’s sentences in both cases and remand for resentencing.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Barbosa-Fernandez v. State, 585 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …everse the defendant’s conviction and sentence for contempt because the record and the final judgment fail to recite facts upon which the adjudication was based as required by rule 3.840(a)(6), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See West v. State, 490 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Barnhill v. State, 438 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, the judgment of guilt and sentence imposed is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of a proper judgment which complies with rule 3.840(a)(6). Reversed an…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw