From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rivero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jan 31, 1992
592 So. 2d 381 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-1361.

January 31, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County; Gary L. Formet, Sr., Judge.

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

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


This 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).

At 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 that the trial court impose a sentence within the guidelines.

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.

SENTENCES VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

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


Summaries of

Rivero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jan 31, 1992
592 So. 2d 381 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Rivero v. State

Case Details

Full title:AMADOR RIVERO, JR., APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jan 31, 1992

Citations

592 So. 2d 381 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Rias v. State

The trial court shall not give new reasons for a departure sentence. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.…

Kopko v. State

We have no alternative but to vacate the sentence appealed and remand for resentencing pursuant to the…