Case ID: so2d_598/html/1077-01.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

Carlos AGUADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 91-1354.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 13, 1992.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Wolfe, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    
      Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michelle Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents in part with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting in part.

I concur in the majority’s affirmance of appellant’s conviction but disagree as to the resolution of the sentencing issue. Under Rule 3.710 of the Fla.R.Crim.P., the appellant, as a first time offender, was entitled to the benefit of a presentence investigation (PSI) report before sentencing. Appellant received a sentence of five and one-half years, the top of the permitted guidelines range. The sentence included a minimum mandatory three year term because of the involvement of illegal drugs. A committee note to Rule 3.710 recognizes that no PSI is necessary if the “specific sentence” imposed is mandatory. The specific sentence here is five and one-half years and is not mandatory. While a three year sentence was mandatory and would have obviated the need for a PSI, I don’t believe we can follow the note’s reasoning here where a sentence almost twice the length of the mandatory sentence is imposed.