CEDELL HENDERSON, 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 sentence imposed after probation revocation that departs beyond the one-cell increase allowed by rule must be supported by clear and convincing reasons, and arrests without conviction are insufficient grounds for departure.
The appellant, while on probation, was arrested for drug offenses, admitted to violating probation, and was adjudicated guilty. The court departed fro…
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
ERVIN, Judge.
The appellant, while on probation, was arrested and charged with four drug-related offenses. A probation revocation hearing was held, at which time Henderson admitted violation of probation. The court then adjudicated Henderson guilty of the original offenses prior to probation, and departed from the recommended guideline sentence of thirty months to a term of ten years. We find the departure to be invalid and reverse.
Any sentence imposed after revocation of probation beyond the one cell departure provided for in Rule 3.701(d)(14), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, must be supported by clear and convincing reasons for departure. Pentaude v. State, 478 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In this case, the trial judge’s reasons for departure were all grounded on the appellant's arrests for which he had yet to receive a conviction. As such, the judge’s consideration of these arrests violates Rule 3.701(d)(ll), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, See also Scurry v. State, 489 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1986) (factors expressly prohibited by the guidelines cannot be used as a reason for departure).
The case is reversed and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the sentence imposed by the trial court must be included within the original guideline cell, or may be increased to the next higher cell. Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla.1986).
WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Scurry v. State, 489 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1986)
- Miranda v. Hance Constr. Co., 478 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)