Hudson v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. State

    700 So. 2d 130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 4 times

    Because the guidelines do not specifically prohibit departure for escape, the trial court did not err in departing on that basis. Our decision in Hudson v. State, 672 So.2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 678 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 1996), involving a defendant involved in the same escape attempt as this appellant, held to the contrary, but was prior to Capers and has been overruled by it. We find the other issues raised by appellant do not merit discussion and affirm.

  2. Rendon v. State

    690 So. 2d 645 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 4 times
    In Rendon v. State, 690 So.2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), the Fourth District noted that the crime referred to in section 921.0016(3)(o) is the primary charge.

    On the other hand, the guidelines expressly prohibit departure based on the victim's law enforcement status where the victim's status is an inherent feature of the crime. 678 So.2d at 332; ยง 921.0016(3)(h); see Hudson v. State, 672 So.2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 678 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 1996). Relevant to this case, the guidelines do not expressly permit departure based on "avoiding detection."