TODD ANDREW GORDON, 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.
Gordon appealed his revocation of probation and five-year prison sentence imposed after he violated the conditions of his probation twice. The court affirmed the revocation and sentence as a proper departure from sentencing guidelines based on repeated probation violations, but remanded to correct a discrepancy in the amount of credit for time served.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation and the five-year prison sentence, holding that it is proper for a trial judge to depart from sentencing guidelines using a second violation of probation as a basis for doing so. However, the court remanded the case to correct a discrepancy between the written sentencing document (74 days credit for time served) and the revocation order (118 days credit).
[1] A second violation of probation by a defendant may serve as a basis for a trial judge to depart from sentencing guidelines.
[2] A discrepancy in the amount of credit for time served indicated on a written sentencing document and an order of revocation of probation requires remand to the trial cour…
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“It is proper for a trial judge to depart from the sentencing guidelines using a second violation of probation by a defendant as a basis for doing so.”
Establishes the legal standard allowing sentencing guideline departures based on repeated probation violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 1, 1984, Gordon pleaded nolo contendere to burglary of a conveyance and was placed on five-year probation with conditions including $500 paym…
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 Sentencing Guidelines Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
[*23] RYDER, Chief Judge.
On March 1, 1984, Gordon pled nolo con-tendere to the crime of burglary of a conveyance which was committed on October 18, 1983. Gordon was placed on probation for five years with conditions of probation which included a required payment of $500.00 to the Lee County Fine and Forfeiture Fund. Gordon was also ordered to undergo drug abuse counseling at the Lee County Mental Health Department.
A warrant was issued on June 29, 1984 charging Gordon with violating five conditions of his probation. The warrant alleged that Gordon had failed to submit written monthly reports, pay the cost of supervision, changed his residence or employment or had left the county without prior consent of his probation officer, failed to pay the $500.00 assessment to the Lee County Fine and Forfeiture Fund, and that he had failed to enter into the drug counseling program at the Lee County Mental Health Department. A hearing on the charges was held on September 10, 1984. Gordon entered a plea of guilty as charged. The trial judge, rather than revoking Gordon’s probation, entered an order of modification requiring Gordon to serve ninety days in the Lee County Jail with credit for time served, and included an additional condition of probation which was to require Gordon to enroll in and successfully complete a drug abuse rehabilitation program offered by an organization called Treatment Alternatives to Street Crimes. Later, another warrant was executed on November 20, 1984, alleging that Gordon had violated his probation again by failing to report to his probation officer, failure to pay cost of his supervision, use of marijuana evidenced by urinalysis on October 10, 1984, failure to comply with instructions from his probation officer to pay $100.00 toward the cost of his supervision, failure to comply with instructions from the probation officer to contact the manager of the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crimes organization, and failure to successfully complete that program.
At this juncture, after hearing was held, the trial court revoked Gordon’s probation and sentenced Gordon to five years in the state prison. The five-year sentence was a departure from the recommended guidelines sentence, which was any nonstate prison sanction. The judge gave as his reason for the departure the fact that Gordon had violated his probation twice for substantially the same causes. It is proper for a trial judge to depart from the sentencing guidelines using a second violation of probation by a defendant as a basis for doing so. Riggins v. State, 477 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We, therefore, affirm the judgment and sentence entered herein.
. However, there is a discrepancy in the amount of credit for time served indicated on the written sentencing document (74 days) and that reflected on the order of revocation of probation (118 days). Therefore, we remand this portion of the case to the trial court with instructions to determine which number is the appropriate credit for time served by Gordon and to issue an order accordingly.
Affirmed, but remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State v. Pentaude, 500 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1987)…o. 2d at 1149. See Taylor v. State, 485 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), citing Williams v. State, 480 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (certifying to this Court identical questions); Monti v. State, 480 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Gordon v. State, 483 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Rule 3.701 d.14 merely recognizes that sentencing following revocation of probation is a serious matter, and so allows for a one cell departure without the necessity of any other reason. By no means, however, does the rule even…
-
Bernhine W. Young v. State, 519 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…1st DCA 1985]. See Taylor v. State, 485 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), citing Williams v. State, 480 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (certifying to this Court identical questions); Monti v. State, 480 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Gordon v. State, 483 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Rule 3.701 d.14 merely recognizes that sentencing following revocation of probation is a serious matter, and so allows for a one cell departure without the necessity of any other reason. By no means, however, does the rule even…
-
Tuthill v. State, 518 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…o. 2d at 1149. See Taylor v. State, 485 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), citing Williams v. State, 480 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (certifying to this Court identical questions); Monti v. State, 480 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Gordon v. State, 483 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Rule 3.701 d.14 merely recognizes that sentencing following revocation of probation is a serious matter, and so allows for a one cell departure without the necessity of any other reason. By no means, however, does the rule even…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jock Everett Riggins v. State, 477 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)