DEBORAH ANN ADAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed Adams' jurisdictional petition challenging her sentencing for community control violations. The Court held that the trial court's departure from guideline sentences was permissible because it was supported by a single valid reason—prior probation violations—and no abuse of discretion occurred.
The Court held that the departure sentence was valid and consistent with sentencing guidelines because the trial court relied on a single valid reason for departure (prior probation violations), the sentences were below the statutory maximum, and no abuse of discretion occurred.
[1] A sentence departure from recommended guidelines is permissible if supported by a single valid reason.
[2] Multiple probation violations can constitute a valid reason for departing from recommended sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“if a trial court relies on both valid and invalid reasons for departure, a defendant must be resentenced unless the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the invalid reason(s) did not affect the sentence”
Establishes the Court's standard for sentencing departures when multiple reasons are given
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams pled guilty to forgery and uttering a forgery and received probation. She violated probation twice, receiving extended probation with a 364-day …
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 Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
McDONALD, Justice.
We granted review of Adams v. State, 474 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), because the district court affirmed Adams’ conviction and sentence based on Albritton v. State, 458 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), which we quashed. 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985). After reviewing the instant record, we find no conflict with our Albritton and dismiss the jurisdictional petition.
In its Albritton the district court held that (1) a sentence departing from the recommended guidelines sentence can be upheld if supported by any valid reason for departure and (2) the guidelines place no restriction on the length of a departure sentence, the only limitation being the statutory maximum sentence. In our Albrit-ton we held that if a trial court relies on both valid and invalid reasons for departure, a defendant must be resentenced unless the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the invalid reason(s) did not affect the sentence. We also specifically quashed the district court’s holding the only lawful limitation on sentence to be the statutory maximum and held that the extent of departure is subject to appellate review with abuse of discretion being the standard for that review. We see no conflict with our Albritton because here (1) the trial court gave only one reason for departure, (2) that single reason is valid, and (3) Adams has shown no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s departing from the recommended guidelines sentence.
The trial court’s uncontradicted statement at sentencing reveals that Adams pled guilty to forgery and uttering a forgery, for which she received a term of probation. She then violated that probation and the trial court again placed her on probation, extending the term and giving her a 364-day sentence of imprisonment as a condition of probation, but reduced that to time served. When Adams again violated probation, she received twenty-four months of community control. The instant case stems from her violation of community control.1
The trial court sentenced Adams to two consecutive four-year terms of imprisonment. As the reason for departing from the original recommended sentence of any nonstate prison sanction, the trial court wrote: “Defendant was previously placed on probation and has twice been found to have violated the terms of her probation.” (Emphasis supplied.) This reason for departure is amply supported by the record and is valid.2 The four-year sentences are below the statutory maximum,3 and Adams has shown no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s departing from the recommended sentence or the extent thereof.
The actions of the trial court and the district court's resolution of this case are consistent with Albritton, and we see no need to remand for the district court to reconsider this case in light of that case. There being no conflict with Albritton, we dismiss Adams’ jurisdictional petition.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT. SEE FLA.R.APP.P. 9.330(d).
.While under community control, Orange County authorities arrested Adams at different times for child abuse and petit theft and possession of cannabis. She pled guilty to these charges and received two concurrent ten-day sentences and further probation. In the instant case the court found that Adams violated her community control conditions by failing to file reports and keep in contact with her supervisor, by falsifying reports (among other things, she never reported her arrests), and by failing to perform the required days of community service.
. The fifth district has held that violating probation can be used to bump a sentence to the next single higher cell, but that further departure must be supported by another reason or reasons, Boldes v. State, 475 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), and, also, that multiple probation violations can support a departure of more than one cell. Riggins v. State, 477 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
. Five years, § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1987)…t to Mischler clearly show that we did not intend Mischler to overrule or modify Albritton. See, e.g., Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1986); Casteel v. State, 498 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1986); Sloan v. State, 491 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1986); Adams v. State, 490 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1986); Scurry v. State, 489 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1986); Agatone v. State, 487 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1986).1 For example, in Scurry v. State, we cited Mischler for the proposition that the prohibited reasons set forth in Mischler could not be used to justi…
-
Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)…ich the court certified the following question as one of great public importance: HAS THE SUPREME COURT IN REE V. STATE, 14 F.L.W. 565 (FLA. NOV. 16, 1989), AND LAMBERT V. STATE, 545 SO.2D 838 (FLA.1989), RECEDED FROM THE HOLDING IN ADAMS V. STATE, 490 SO.2D 53 (FLA.1986), IN WHICH IT FOUND THAT WHERE A DEFENDANT, PREVIOUSLY PLACED ON PROBATION, HAS REPEATEDLY VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS PROBATION AFTER HAVING HAD HIS PROBATION RESTORED, THAT A TRIAL COURT MAY USE THE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF PROBATION AS A VA…1 / 2
-
Dilar S. Booker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1987)…part because a probation violation which occurs between the substantive offense and the current revocation is not scored on the guidelines score sheets; use of these unscored probation violations was a valid reason for departure. See Adams v. State, 490 So. 2d 53, 54 (Fla.1986); State v. Pentaude, 500 So. 2d 526, 528 (Fla.1987) (rule 3.701(d)(14) does not limit trial judge’s discretion to depart based upon numerous other factors surrounding a violation of probation). The second reason for departure, petitio…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Boldes v. State, 475 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 458 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Jock Everett Riggins v. State, 477 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Adams v. State, 474 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)