reasons for an upward departure sentence at sentencing, but failed to provide written reasons for the departure contemporaneous with the written sentence as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll). The supreme court noted that the district court “correctly vacated the sentence due to the trial court’s failure to provide written rea sons.” Id. at 555. However, the court reversed that portion of the district court’s opinion that permitted the trial court an opportunity to provide written reasons and reimpose the upward departure sentence on remand. Id. Rather, the supreme court held that the trial court was compelled to resentence the defendant within the guidelines. Id. at 556; see also Owens v. State, 598 So.2d 64 (Fla.1992); Jones v. State, 639 So.2d 28 (Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>), receded from in Pease v. State, 712 So.2d 374
holding that only factors specifically prohibited by the sentencing guidelines cannot form the basis for a downward departure holding that resentencing is required holding that despite the defendants status as the sole supporter of his wife and three children the district court erred when it gave a downward departure for familial obligations because departure downward in sentencing is not justified for family reasons except in unusual circumstances holding same rule applied and required resentencing within the guidelines when trial judge failed to supply written reasons for downward departure holding district court correctly reversed a departure sentence where the trial court failed to provide written reasons for the departure