DANNY LEE COCHRAN, 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.
Danny Lee Cochran appeals his five-year prison sentence imposed after probation revocation, challenging whether he knowingly waived his right to parole eligibility under sentencing guidelines and whether the trial court provided clear and convincing reasons for departing from the recommended sentencing range. The court affirms the sentence while certifying a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding waiver requirements for pre-October 1983 crimes.
The court affirms the sentence, holding that affirmative selection of guideline sentencing is all that is required and rejecting the waiver contention on authority of Moore v. State. The court also rejects the claim that the trial court failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for departure, as violation of a substantive condition of probation constitutes a clear and convincing reason for departing from guidelines.
[1] An affirmative selection of sentencing pursuant to the sentencing guidelines is sufficient, and the record need not show the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived…
[2] Violation of a substantive condition of probation can constitute a clear and convincing reason for a trial court to depart from the sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an affirmative selection is all that is required”
Establishes the court's holding that defendants need only affirmatively select guideline sentencing without explicit waiver documentation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCochran was on five years' probation for making or uttering a false prescription when he committed eight crimes in South Carolina in violation of his …
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
MILLS, Judge.
Cochran appeals from a five-year prison sentence imposed on him following revocation of his probation. He contends the sentence should be vacated because the record does not show that in selecting sentencing pursuant to the sentencing guidelines he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to parole eligibility. Next, he contends the trial court failed to give clear and convincing reasons for departing from the recommended range. We affirm.
Cochran’s first contention is. the same one rejected by this Court in Moore v. State, 455 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), where we held an affirmative selection is all that is required. We reject this contention on authority of Moore, but certify the following question to the Supreme Court as one of great public importance:
When a defendant who committed a crime before 1 October 1983 affirmatively selects sentencing pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, must the record show the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to parole eligibility?
We also reject Cochran’s second contention.
While on five years probation imposed by a Florida court for making or uttering a false prescription, Cochran committed eight crimes in South Carolina. An amended affidavit of probation violation recited these crimes charging they were violations of the probation condition that Cochran live and remain at liberty without violating any law. At the revocation hearing, Cochran admitted the accuracy of the allegations in the probation violation affidavit. The court found Cochran violated his probation as outlined in the affidavit and revoked probation.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel announced Cochran was affirmatively selecting guideline sentencing. The trial court then announced it was going outside the guidelines and sentenced Cochran to five years in prison, the maximum sentence. The trial court stated:
The court has gone outside the sentencing guidelines inasmuch as the court deems it to be sufficient aggravating circumstances when one violates conditions of probation and can’t live within the law.
Therefore, the sentencing guidelines have not been adhered to by the court over objection of the defendant.
The comments made by the court will be transcribed by the court reporter and made part of the judgment and sentence with reference to going outside the sentencing guidelines.
Violation of a substantive condition of probation can be a clear and convincing reason for departing from the guidelines. See Bogan v. State, 454 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Carter v. State, 454 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); and Addison v. State, 452 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitehead v. State, 467 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…Moore v. State, 455 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), where we held an affirmative selection is all that is required. We reject this contention on authority of Moore, but, as in Gage v. State, 461 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Cochran v. State, 460 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), certify the following question to the Supreme Court as one of great public importance: When a defendant who committed a crime before 1 October 1983 affirmatively selects sentencing, pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, must t…
-
Bradley v. State, 468 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…] show he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to parole eligibility. This argument has been uniformly rejected by this Court beginning with Moore v. State, 455 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We again reject it, but, as in Cochran v. State, 460 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Gage v. State, 461 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), we certify the following question of great public importance: When a defendant who committed a crime before 1 October 1983 affirmatively selects sentencing pursuant to the…
-
Cochran v. State, 476 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1985)…a defendant who committed a crime before 1 October 1983 affirmatively selects sentencing pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, must the record show the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to parole eligibility? Cochran v. State, 460 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the state constitution. We agree with the district court that an affirmative selection is sufficient and answer the question in the negative. In 1977 the state…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- LaMarcus Edward Carter v. State, 454 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Glynn Addison, Jr. v. State, 452 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Moore v. State, 455 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Bogan v. State, 454 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)