History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Wichy
1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14164
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1999
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978); State v. Henriquez, 717 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Evans v. State, 619 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

NESBITT, and SORONDO, JJ., concur.






Concurrence Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge

(specially concurring).

While the downward departure involved in this case was supported by no written reasons at all, and the ground orally announced at sentencing was utterly insufficient, I concur in affirmance only because fundamental error was not involved and the state did not raise and preserve its contentions in the trial court as required by the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996. See §§ 924.051(l)(b), (2), Fla. Stat. (1997); Jordan v. State, 728 So.2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), review granted, 735 So.2d 1285 (Fla.1999); Weiss v. State, 720 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), review granted, 729 So.2d 396 (Fla.1999).

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Wichy
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Oct 27, 1999
Citation: 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14164
Docket Number: No. 98-2438
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.