JEFFREY V. MACHANSKY, 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.
Machansky appealed his probation revocation sentence of ten years, which exceeded the applicable sentencing guidelines. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly based its departure sentence on willfulness—an element inherent in every probation violation—rather than on sufficiently egregious circumstances justifying departure beyond the next higher guidelines range.
The departure sentence was improper because willfulness is an inherent element of every probation violation and therefore cannot justify a departure beyond the applicable guidelines ranges. A court may depart beyond the next higher range only when the underlying reasons for the violation are more than minor infractions and sufficiently egregious, which was not established here.
[1] A trial court may impose a sentence within the original or next higher guidelines range upon revocation of probation without providing written reasons for departure.
[2] A trial court may depart beyond the next higher guidelines range upon revocation of probation if the underlying reasons for the violation are sufficiently egregious and m…
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“A court is permitted to depart beyond the next higher range if the underlying reasons for the violation of probation, as opposed to the mere fact of violation, are more than minor infractions and are sufficiently egregious.”
Establishes the standard for permissible departure sentences beyond the next higher guidelines range in probation revocation cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMachansky was serving probation for dealing in stolen property. The state filed an affidavit alleging multiple probation violations, to which Machansk…
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 Written Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Jeffrey V. Machansky, appeals the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court following the revocation of his probation. We reverse.
The state filed an affidavit alleging that the defendant had violated several conditions of the probation which he was serving for dealing in stolen property. The defendant pled guilty to these allegations.
The defendant’s original guidelines score-sheet indicated a sentencing range of two and one-half to three and one-half years, and the next higher range was three and one-half to four and one-half years. After revoking the defendant’s probation, the trial court imposed a departure sentence of ten years imprisonment. The trial court’s written reasons for departure indicated that the defendant was “in willful, deliberate violation of the terms and conditions of his probation” and that the defendant had “no intention of following the rules and conditions of his probation” as evidenced by his act of leaving the state after being told not to do so. This timely appeal followed.
Upon revoking a defendant’s probation, the trial court may impose a sentence within the original guidelines range or the next higher guidelines range without providing written reasons for departure. Fla.R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(14). A court is permitted to depart beyond the next higher range if the underlying reasons for the violation of probation, as opposed to the mere fact of violation, are more than minor infractions and are sufficiently egregious. State v. Pentaude, 500 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1987). The reasons given in this case, however, do not meet this requirement. The trial court’s departure was premised upon the willfulness of the defendant’s acts. Willfulness, however, is an element of every violation of probation. Shaw v. State, 391 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The trial court, therefore, could not use that element to justify departure. See State v. Misckler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986).
We, accordingly, reverse the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand for resentencing within the original or the next higher guidelines range.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Avelino DeLEON v. State, 536 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…; Gordon v. State, 483 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). A calculated violation of community control, however, is an invalid reason for departure in that willfulness is an element of every violation of probation or community control. Machansky v. State, 517 So. 2d 101, 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The trial judge based his decision to depart on both valid and invalid reasons. The state made no showing whether the absence of the invalid reason would have affected the departure sentence and instead relied completely on…
-
Chatman v. State, 533 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…which were all grounded upon defendant’s willful violation of probation cannot be the basis for departure beyond the one-cell enhancement for violation of probation provided under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14). Machansky v. State, 517 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The willfulness of the defendant is an element of every violation of probation. Id. at 102 (citing Shaw v. State, 391 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)). See also Alexander v. State, 513 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Duval v. Stat…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Pentaude, 500 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1987)
- Shaw v. State, 391 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)