Smith v. State, 95-1707
| Decision Date | 20 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1707,95-1707 |
| Citation | 669 So.2d 1133 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D675 Mark SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Isom v. State, No. 3D00-2468
...State v. Stabile, 443 So.2d 398, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also Perez v. State, 767 So.2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Smith v. State, 669 So.2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In his next two claims, Isom contends that the trial court improperly used his habitual offender status as a reason f......
-
Smith v. State
...3.800 motion and deny as the same issue has been raised in a previous motion and been ruled upon and denied. See Smith v. State, 669 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). ...
-
Smith v. State, 3D14–2643.
...a similar argument saying “the same issue has been raised in a previous motion and been ruled upon and denied. See Smith v. State, 669 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).” We therefore deny this petition for a writ of mandamus. We caution the defendant that further attempts to obtain such relief......