State v. Forehand
State v. Forehand
Opinion of the Court
The state appeals the sentence imposed on Forehand after he negotiated a plea and pled nolo contendere to grand theft,
The trial judge listed seven reasons for the downward departure, the first three of which are invalid. See Lerma, v. State, 497 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1986); State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1986); Dowling v. State, 496 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Taylor, 482 So.2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We make no comment as to the validity of the remaining four reasons because there is no clear authority on these issues. Since it is not clear that, absent the invalid reasons the trial court would have imposed the same sentence, we must reverse and remand. Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1985).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
.§§ 812.014(1), (2)(b)1 & 812.015(1), Fla.Stat. (1985).
. §§ 810.02(1) & (3), Fla.Stat. (1985).
. §§ 812.014(l)(a), (b) & (2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1985).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.