Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1986

Wade v. State

Wade v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided April 9, 1986 · Booth, Pearson, Ret, Shivers
488 So. 2d 99; 10 Fla. L. Weekly 849; 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7165 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Wade v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Upon reconsideration pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida we apply the rule in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1985), and affirm the trial court’s departure from the presumptive sentencing guidelines.

Although, in this case, both valid and invalid reasons for departure were given, the State has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence. Accordingly, we affirm.

BOOTH, C.J., SHIVERS, J., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

070rehearing

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Motion for rehearing is granted for the purpose of considering the following supplemental authorities cited by appellant:

State v. Misckler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1986).
State v. Cote, 487 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1986).
Hankey v. State, 485 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1986).

After consideration, we adhere to the original opinion.

BOOTH, C.J., SHIVERS, J., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.