ROY CHARLES BELL, 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 probation violation is sufficient grounds to depart from sentencing guidelines, even if relying on an unadopted commission recommendation.
Appellant was sentenced to a prison term after a probation violation, which was higher than the recommended guideline sentence. The trial judge cited …
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 Guidelines Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a guideline sentence. Appellant was sentenced after a probation violation to a thirty month prison term. That sentence was within the cell next above that which should have been given. Because appellant violated his probation the judge was justified in sentencing him to the greater punishment. Atkinson v. State, 456 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Maged v. State, 455 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Davis v. State, 455 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); 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).
The record is sufficient to support the departure from the lower recommended sentence because the trial judge stated the reason on the record. Klapp v. State, 456 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hackney v. State, 456 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
The principal point appellant raises is that the trial judge erred in relying upon a memorandum of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission which recommended that judges be permitted to sentence a probation violator to punishment within the next higher cell of the guidelines without giving any reason for the greater sentence. Appellant says the recommendation had no effect in law because it had not been adopted by the supreme court or the legislature. While appellant is correct the recommendation had not been adopted, we cannot agree the judge erred. This court has held that a violation of probation constitutes sufficient grounds to depart from the guidelines. If we were to rule otherwise here we would be in conflict with a prior decision of this court.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oden v. State, 463 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…lowing Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), on the issue of the need for written reasons for departing from the guidelines, we certify conflict, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi), with Bell v. State, 459 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Brady v. State, 457 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Fleming v. State, 456 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Burke v. State, 456 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Klapp v. State, 4…
-
Browning v. State, 465 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ineating the reasons for departure. This court has held that an oral explanation in the record by the trial court of the reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines is sufficient to meet the requirements of rule 3.701(d)(11). Bell v. State, 459 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Burke v. State, 456 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Hackney v. State, 456 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). And, in Neely v. State, 453 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), this court held that violation of probation was a sufficient…
-
Davis v. State, 460 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED on the authority of Bell v. State, 459 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). DAUKSCH, ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Davis v. State, 455 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Gordon v. State, 454 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Klapp v. State, 456 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Jackson Leroy Neely v. State, 453 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Hackney v. State, 456 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Matey v. James H. Pruitt Real Est., Inc., 455 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Atkinson v. State, 456 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)