Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1992

Aguado v. State

Aguado v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided May 13, 1992 · Anstead, Dell, Hersey
598 So. 2d 1077; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5419; 1992 WL 98835 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Aguado v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents in part with opinion.

Dissenting 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.

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