Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

598 So. 2d 285

Seals v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-05-13

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1993

2 state decisions

Relies on 561 So. 2d 554 - Pope v. State · Ree v. State · 576 So. 2d 706 - State v. Lyles

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-05-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We find no reversible error as to appellant’s several points regarding his conviction. However, we reverse appellant’s sentence because the trial court failed to enter a written statement of the reasons for its departure from the recommended guidelines sentence until approximately six (6) days after its oral pronouncement of those reasons. State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706, 709 (Fla.1991). See Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990). We remand for resentenc-ing with no possibility of departure from the guidelines. Owens v. State, 598 So.2d 64 (Fla.1992); Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990).

¶2AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART> and REMANDED.

LETTS, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
/598/so2d/285 · .json · Public domain