
    George HUDACEK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 85-2873.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Dec. 9, 1987.
    
      Michael G. Smith, Coral Gables, and Richard L. Rosenbaum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert S. Jaegers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction, but remand for resentencing. The first reason given by the trial court for departure from the guidelines — that appellant was engaged in interstate as opposed to intrastate drug trafficking — does not constitute a clear and convincing reason for departure. While the second reason given by the trial court has been found to be a valid reason for departure, we are unable to say beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have departed as it did, had it known the first reason it relied upon was invalid. Therefore, we reverse for re-sentencing. See Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

REVERSED for resentencing.

DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

WALDEN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

WALDEN, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur that reason one does not justify a departure from the sentencing guidelines.

I disagree that reason two is a valid ground for departure. I would reverse and remand with instructions for resentencing within the guidelines.  