Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

545 So. 2d 890

Docket No. 87-2991.

Trotman v. State

Earnest TROTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 25, 1989.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-03-22

Relies on 478 So. 2d 1054 - State v. Jackson · 436 So. 2d 44 - Hawkins v. State · 513 So. 2d 664 - Wilkerson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-03-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2019

7 state decisions

401989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

On Rehearing March 22, 1989.

¶1*891 Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Alfonso M. Saldana, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3HERSEY, Chief Judge.

¶4We reverse one of appellant's two convictions of first-degree burglary and we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.

¶5Trotman was charged with and found guilty of two counts of first-degree burglary. One count involved an assault and the other a battery. Regardless, there was but one entry and thus the dual convictions cannot stand. Hawkins v. State,436 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1983).

¶6The sentence imposed constituted an upward departure from the guidelines' recommended range and consequently was required to be supported by contemporaneous written reasons for departure. State v. Jackson,478 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1985), receded from in part on other grounds, Wilkerson v. State,513 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1987). See also Schmeisser v. State,527 So.2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); State v. Daughtry,487 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); § 921.001(6), Fla. Stat. (1987); Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701 b.6. and d.11. There being none, resentencing is required.

¶7By agreement of the parties, we strike the imposition of costs.

¶8AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

¶9GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

¶10

OPINION ON REHEARING

¶11On motion for rehearing, the state provided this court with written reasons for departure executed by the trial court at sentencing but which were inadvertently not made a part of the record on appeal. We find the written reasons support the departure sentence entered and therefore vacate that portion of our opinion remanding for resentencing on this basis. We do, however, remand for a recalculation of appellant's scoresheet based on one count of first-degree burglary instead of two counts. Edwards v. State,529 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

/545/so2d/890 · .json · Public domain