Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

504 So. 2d 2

504 So.2d 2

11 Fla.L.Weekly 2405

Docket Nos. 86-795, 86-796.

Hudson v. State

John Daniel HUDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 14, 1986.

Rehearing Denied February 12, 1987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-11-14

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1988

4 state decisions

Relies on 484 So. 2d 633 - Martinez-Diaz v. State · 487 So. 2d 63 - Dawkins v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-11-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Karla Foreman Wright, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Defendant appeals from his sentences for possession and delivery of drugs and contends that there were impermissible reasons for the trial court's departure from the presumptive sentencing range under the guidelines. We agree and reverse.

¶5The trial court's reason that the defendant, while on probation, was in possession of cocaine under circumstances indicating that he was selling cocaine was impermissible because it related to an offense for which a conviction was not obtained. See Dawkins v. State, 487 So.2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The trial court's reason that the defendant was a threat to society was impermissible. See Martinez-Diaz v. State, 484 So.2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

¶6Reversed and remanded for sentencing within the presumptive guidelines range or one cell higher for the violation of probation.

¶7CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.

/504/so2d/2 · .json · Public domain