JACKSON LEROY NEELY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A violation of probation can be a sufficient reason to exceed presumptive sentencing guidelines if the proper rules are followed.
Neely's probation was revoked for violating its terms, and he was sentenced to four years in prison, exceeding the presumptive guideline sentence. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Departure From Presumptive Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
On October 17, 1983, the trial court revoked Neely’s probation and sentenced him under the new sentencing guidelines, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701, for carrying a concealed weapon in violation of section 790.01, Florida Statutes (1983). Neely was placed on probation on January 26, 1979, for five years, and on May 24, 1983, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed against him. He pleaded guilty to violating probation and the trial court sentenced him to four years in state prison. This sentence exceeded the presumptive guideline sentence.1
The trial judge stated on the appealed sentence that he was exceeding the presumptive sentence because following the guidelines “would result in almost no sentence. The defendant’s original probation order was for almost the presumptive sentence.” Also, expressly stated on the score sheet appears the following reason for departure:
While serving a Five Year Probation for Carrying a Concealed Firearm Offender accumulated Six Misdemeanor Convictions and one Felony Conv. [sic] for Concealing a Fugitive all occurring in State of Illinois and subsequently to being placed on Orange Cty Probation in Case CR78-815 on 01/26/79.
As stated in Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), we think violation of probation may be a sufficient reason to exceed the presumptive guidelines range if rules 3.701(b)(6) and 3.701(d)(11) are complied with. The reasons given here are tantamount to such a statement, and therefore we affirm the sentence in this case.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur. . The presumptive sentence for Neely was any non-state prison sanction. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.988(h). The four year term exceeded the next presumptive sentence range as well.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Onelia Garcia and Matthew Lee Wilson v. State, 454 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…er “legal restraint” under Rule 3.988(d)IV, so as to justify adding points to his score sheet, held a violation of probation may serve as a legitimate reason to exceed the presumptive sentence established by the guidelines. See also, Neely v. State, 453 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Accord, Bogan v. State, 454 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).4 Finally, in our initial decision construing the “clear and convincing reasons” language of Rule 3.701(d)(ll), Manning v. State, supra, we held that the rule did not p…
-
Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…on, indicates in his Outline of the Guidelines that Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) did provide a predicate for the clear and convincing reason standard. . Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Neely v. State, 453 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Bogan v. State, 454 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Gordon v. State, 454 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Davis v. State, 455 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Maged v. State, 4…1 / 2
-
Whitlock v. State, 458 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…ail time. We think the trial court was justified in departing upwards from the presumptive guideline sentence because Whitlock repeatedly violated the conditions of his probation. Gordon v. State, 454 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Neely v. State, 453 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Once there exists clear and convincing reasons to depart from the guidelines, we do not think the appellate courts have jurisdiction to review the extent of the departure, so…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)