Case ID: so2d_495/html/0845-01.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

Joseph Harlin STOOKSBURY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 85-2673.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Oct. 7, 1986.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Susan Odzer Hu-gentugler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUB-BART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Where, as here, the presumptive sentence established by the sentencing guidelines included a “nonstate prison sanction,” and thus the permissible alternative of incarceration in the county jail, the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant was “an unsuitable candidate to be placed on probation again” is not a clear and convincing reason to deviate from the guidelines. Heston v. State, 490 So.2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Montgomery v. State, 489 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for sentencing within the guidelines.

Reversed and remanded.