Case ID: so2d_696/html/0496-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Antonio WILBURN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 96-2205.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    July 2, 1997.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Keith S. Kromash, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GODERICH, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

As the State properly concedes, the trial court erred by imposing an upward departure sentence without giving written reasons for the departure. However, a review of the record reveals that the trial court was unaware that it was imposing a departure sentence. Therefore, on remand, the trial court is permitted to reconsider whether a departure from the sentencing guidelines is appropriate and if so, to set forth valid reasons for the departure. State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.1989).

The defendant’s remaining point lacks merit.

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded for resentencing.