CHARLES RAYMOND LIBBY, 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.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation but reversed the departure sentence, remanding for resentencing within the guidelines.
Defendant appealed the revocation of his probation and the departure sentence imposed. The trial court disallowed an opinion from the defendant's psyc…
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 Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals the revocation of his probation and the departure sentence imposed. We affirm the revocation, reverse the sentence, and remand for resentencing within the guidelines recommended range.
As to the revocation of probation, we conclude there was no error in the trial court’s having disallowed an opinion from defendant’s psychiatrist as to whether defendant committed the lewd acts which constituted the violations of probation. See Farley v. State, 324 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Gibbs v. State, 193 So. 2d 460, 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).
As to the sentence, the trial court gave two reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines. The first was that the probation violations were acts of the same type as that forming the basis for the crime for which probation had been imposed. However, that reason was not valid because no conviction had been obtained for those acts. See Wilson v. State, 510 So. 2d 1088, 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The second reason — that the violations of probation were committed in an aggressive and forceful manner — was not supported by the evidence.
The sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded for resentencing within the guidelines recommended range which may include a one-cell increase for violation of probation.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schneer v. Allstate Indem. Co., 767 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ether defendant’s actions were premeditated); 3-M Corp. — McGhan Medical Reports Div. v. Brown, 475 So. 2d 994, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (error to permit expert in products liability case to testify that product was defective); Libby [*489] v. State, 540 So. 2d 171, 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (no error in excluding psychiatrist’s opinion “as to whether the defendant committed the lewd acts.”); Lamazares v. Valdez, 353 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (expert may not testify that the defendant was untruthful and liab…
Authorities Cited
- Gibbs v. State, 193 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Farley v. State, 324 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Wilson v. State, 510 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)