CLIFFORD W. CARROLL, 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 defendant placed on probation before the effective date of new sentencing guidelines, whose probation is revoked after they become effective, may elect to be sentenced under the guidelines.
Appellant pleaded guilty to violation of probation and elected to be sentenced under new sentencing guidelines. The trial court rejected this request …
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
Appellant pleaded guilty to violation of probation, and elected to be sentenced under the new sentencing guidelines. The trial court rejected this request because the crime for which appellant had originally been placed on probation had occurred pri-or to the effective date of the guidelines. We remand for resentencing.
The State’s contention that appellant may not appeal because he pleaded guilty is not well taken. Á defendant may appeal a sentence which he contends is not in conformity with the guidelines, even after the entry of a guilty plea to the substantive charge. Key v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
On the merits, a defendant who was placed on probation prior to the effective date of the new sentencing guidelines and whose probation is revoked after they became effective may elect to be sentenced under the guidelines. Duggar v. State, 446 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). This follows the supreme court’s mandate that the guidelines apply to sentences imposed after the effective date of the rule for applicable crimes committed prior thereto, where affirmatively selected by the defendant. In Re Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines), 439 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 1983). Because defendant so elected here, he was entitled to be sentenced in accordance with the guidelines, although the trial court may determine, for clear and convincing reasons, that a departure from the guidelines is warranted. See, e.g., Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Gordon v. State, 454 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
The sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…oes not prevent election to use guidelines but election may be waived Query v. State, 455 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Johnson v. State, 453 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Harms v. State, 454 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Carroll v. State, 454 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Olsen v. State, 458 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Duggar v. State, 446 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Boyett v. State, 452 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Harrington v. State, 455 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Knight v.…
-
Kimble v. State, 458 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…sentencing guidelines were effective and did not impose the recommended guideline sentence and did not state in writing reasons for imposing a departure sentence. Because of appellant’s election the guidelines were applicable. See Carroll v. State, 454 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Rutlin v. State, 455 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Mack v. State, 458 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We have recently held that as to sentence imposed before July 1, 1984,2 in the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion…
Authorities Cited
- In re Rules of Criminal Procedure (sentencing Guidelines), 439 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1983)
- Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Duggar v. State, 446 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- KEY v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Gordon v. State, 454 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)