Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Greisdorf

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 28, 1991No. 90-2648Published

1Concurrence

ANSTEAD, Judge,

specially concurring.

Except for controlling precedent, with which I respectfully disagree, I would approve the well-reasoned order of the trial court which provides:

ORDER OF DEPARTURE

THIS CAUSE having come before this Court on Defendant’s Motion to Depart Downward From Presumptive Guideline Sentence and to Avoid The Minimum Mandatory Sentence and Sentence Defendant Alternatively Pursuant to F.S. 397.12, and the Court having heard testimony on the matter, reviewed the file, heard arguments of counsel, reviewed the law, and being otherwise duly advised, it is

ORDERED that said…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Barbera v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1987
  2. State v. EdwardsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  3. State v. HerrinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API