From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Timonere v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 16, 1994
631 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Opinion

Nos. 92-00602, 92-04340.

February 16, 1994.

Stevan T. Northcutt, Levine, Hirsch, Segall Northcutt, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Christopher M. Sierra, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


In this consolidated appeal, James M. Timonere challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and its imposition of a departure sentence without a contemporaneous statement of the reasons for departure. We find no merit in his claim that trial counsel was ineffective, and affirm the denial of his motion for postconviction relief without discussion.

The trial court did, however, commit reversible error when it imposed a departure sentence without providing contemporaneous reasons for the departure at the sentencing hearing. See Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 1990), modified by State v. Lyles, 576 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1991); Barry v. State, 626 So.2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Hall v. State, 598 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we reverse Timonere's sentences and remand for sentencing within the guidelines.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Timonere v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 16, 1994
631 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
Case details for

Timonere v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES M. TIMONERE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Feb 16, 1994

Citations

631 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing Cases

Timonere v. State

On an earlier occasion we reversed his sentence and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. Timonere…

Fannin v. State

This court reversed and remanded both cases, even though a different panel had affirmed Fannin. See Barry v.…