From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 20, 1996
669 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 95-1707.

March 20, 1996.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Michael A. Genden, Judge.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Rosa C. Figarola, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Avi J. Litwin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.


In Smith v. State, 640 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), this court ordered Mark Smith's two convictions for attempted felony murder vacated. Thereafter, the trial judge vacated those convictions and immediately mistakenly signed a judgment reimposing the convictions and resentencing Smith. The state has conceded these convictions must be reversed and the case remanded for correction of the sentence imposed.

Defendant argues that as to the count which remains, on remand he is entitled to be sentenced within the guidelines, as the record cannot support a departure sentence. We disagree. This point was raised in Smith's earlier appeal and we affirmed the validity of his life-risking flight as a basis for a departure from the guidelines. Thus, this reason as a valid basis for a departure sentence is the law of the case. State v. Stabile, 443 So.2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for resentencing.


Summaries of

Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 20, 1996
669 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Smith v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARK SMITH, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 20, 1996

Citations

669 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Smith v. State

In 2008, this Court rejected a similar argument saying “the same issue has been raised in a previous motion…

Smith v. State

In 2008, this Court rejected a similar argument saying “the same issue has been raised in a previous motion…