Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

592 So. 2d 381

Docket No. 91-1361.

Rivero v. State

Amador RIVERO, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 31, 1992.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-01-31

Relies on 561 So. 2d 554 - Pope v. State · 515 So. 2d 748 - Shull v. Dugger · Brown v. State

Decided 1992-01-31

¶1James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James T. Cook, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

¶3COWART, Judge.

¶4This is an appeal from a re-sentencing on remand after this court vacated the original sentence, see Rivero v. State, 573 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

¶5At resentencing, the trial court imposed the same departure sentences but gave additional reasons for departure. We vacate on the authority of Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1990) and Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1987) and remand with directions that upon resentencing this time *382 that the trial court impose a sentence within the guidelines.[1]

¶6SENTENCES VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

¶7GOSHORN, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

NOTES

¶8[1] The language of the opinions in Rivero and Brown v. State, 570 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) should not be read to be inconsistent with Pope and Shull.

/592/so2d/381 · .json · Public domain