Legal Opinion

Sherman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 7, 1987No. 86-948PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge of grand theft and was sentenced to seven years in prison. The reason given for the departure from the sentencing guidelines was the determination that appellant was a habitual offender. The supreme court recently held that the habitual offender statute cannot be used as a basis for guidelines departure. Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). Therefore, the appellant’s sentence cannot stand.

Since appellant had been determined to be indigent, appellant’s sentence also included a requirement to perform community service in lieu of $200 costs…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Whitehead v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1986
  2. AUTO OWN. INS. CO. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Auth.Supreme Court of Florida · 1963
  3. Johnson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
  4. City of St. Petersburg v. EnglishSupreme Court of Florida · 1907
  5. State v. J.R.M.Supreme Court of Florida · 1980

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Sherman v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API