ROY D. HAMILTON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 held that the trial court improperly departed from the sentencing guidelines when imposing a sentence after a violation of community control.
Appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and placed on community control. After violating community control, the trial …
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 Upward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
Defendant below alleges an improper departure sentence following violation of an earlier-imposed sentence of community control. Upon the State’s confession of error, and our own independent review of this case, we reverse and remand.
In February, 1989, appellant Roy Hamilton was convicted and adjudicated guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community control for two years. After Hamilton’s community control officer twice found him violating a condition of his community control, the officer petitioned to revoke it, alleging only appellant’s failure to comply with certain conditions of his community control. No new substantive charges were filed. The guideline scoresheet sentence for the underlying possession-of-a-firearm conviction, under Section 790.23, Florida Statutes (1987), was 12-30 months incarceration. The trial court revoked appellant’s community control and sentenced him to five years in state prison, listing as its reasons for departure the appellant’s recent release from federal custody and the brief period of time during which appellant was on community control prior to the instant community control violation. This appeal follows.
Appellant contends and the State concedes that, under the facts of this case, the trial court could properly depart only one cell from the 12-30 month incarceration sentence imposed for the underlying crime, thereby allowing an upward departure sentence of between 2½ — 3½ years of incarceration. The trial court’s five year sentence, then, was an upward departure of more than one cell and, therefore, con-cededly illegal. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)14; see generally Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1988).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 554 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…y additional departure. Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1989); Perez v. State, 554 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Hunnicutt v. State, 549 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Crawford v. State, 549 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Hamilton v. State, 547 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Burg v. State, 550 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Kramer v. State, 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.…
Authorities Cited
- Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1988)