Case ID: so2d_641/html/0195-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ANSTEAD, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nelson Antonio HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 93-3060.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Aug. 24, 1994.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joan L. Greenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant’s argument upon the first point on appeal is not persuasive. As for the second point on appeal, although neither party called to our attention the trial court’s statement at sentencing that it had ordered, received and reviewed a PSI, our search of the record reveals such. The trial court’s consideration of the PSI satisfied section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes (1991), which, under the facts of this case, required due consideration of the criteria set out in section 921.005(1). See Mancini v. State, 593 So.2d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting.

On the sentencing issue, I would remand for the statutorily mandated consideration of the criteria set out in section 921.005(1).