TINA L. KRAMER, 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.
Defendant's departure sentence for community control violation was vacated because sentencing court improperly used violation of probation and community control as grounds for departure, which is prohibited under Florida sentencing guidelines.
Upon violation of community control, a sentencing court may only increase the sentence by one cell within the guideline range and cannot use probation or community control violations as grounds for departure.
[1] Upon violation of community control, sentencing court may only increase sentence by one cell within guideline range and cannot use probation or community control violatio…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant pled guilty to grand larceny and was placed on probation. After violating probation conditions, she was sentenced to six months incarceratio…
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 Guideline Range cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant pled guilty to grand larceny and was placed on probation with conditions. Thereafter she was found to have violated conditions of probation. She was sentenced to six months incarceration followed by one year community control, followed by two years probation. Subsequently she was found to have violated conditions of her community control and again sentenced, this time to a departure sentence of five years incarceration. The reasons given for departure related to her violation of probation and her violation of community control.
Upon a violation of community control, the sentencing court may resen-tence the defendant only within a one cell upward increase from the original guideline range (Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d.14.) and factors relating to the violation of probation or community control cannot be used as grounds for departure from the recommended guideline sentence range. See, Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla.l989); Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989). See also Dewberry v. State, 546 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1989); Branton v. State, 548 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
The sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for resentencing.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.
DANIEL, C.J., and SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
State v. Saufley, 574 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…then the first order does not constitute a “final order” appealable as such under Rule 9.030(b)(1)(A) and attempted appeals of such non-final orders are subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction as held in [*1211] Arcangeli v. Albertson’s Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Arcangeli merely holds that an order to be appealable as a final order under Rule 9.030(b)(1)(A) must end the judicial labor in the cause and that an order merely granting a motion to dismiss, as in Lawler v. Harris, 418 So. 2d…1 / 2
-
Yost v. Am. Nat'l Bank, 570 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…, 557 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Chapman v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, 549 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Johnson v. First City Bank of Gainesville, 491 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Arcangeli v. Albertson’s, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557, 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); White Palms of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Fox, 525 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 4th [*354] DCA 1988); Russell v. Russell, 507 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Accordingly, we reverse the order which awarded final judgment to American Nat…
-
Dixon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 609 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…y, 584 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (an order which merely grants a motion for summary judgment is not a final order). Accord Nolan’s Towing and Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Arcangeli v. Albertson’s, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (en banc); Amelco Investment Corp. v. Bryant Electric Co., 487 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Trust Co., 208 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). Because the “Order Granting Summary Judgment…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1989)
- Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1989)
- Dewberry v. State, 546 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1989)
- Branton v. State, 548 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)