Case Name: Alberto RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-05-08
Citations: 561 So. 2d 9
Docket Number: No. 89-232
Parties: Alberto RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 561
Pages: 9–10

Head Matter:
Alberto RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 89-232.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 8, 1990.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Friedman, Baur, Miller & Webner, P.A., Miami, and Nicholas R. Friedman, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Anita Gay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Alberto Ramirez appeals from a sentence entered upon a judgment of conviction for burglary. For the following reasons, we reverse the sentence and remand for resen-tencing within the sentencing guidelines.
When sentencing Ramirez, the trial court failed to enter written reasons for its departure from the sentencing guidelines. Failure to enter written reasons for departure requires reversal of the sentence and a remand for resentencing. Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512 (Fla.1990). "[W]hen an appellate court reverses a departure sentence because there were no written reasons, the court must remand for sentencing with no possibility of departure from the guidelines." Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990).
Because Pope gives neither this court nor the trial court any alternative, we remand with directions to resentence Ramirez within the sentencing guidelines.
Reversed and remanded with directions.