JOSEPH MITCHELL, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a five-year sentence imposed upon community control violation because the trial judge impermissibly departed upward beyond the one-cell increase permitted by rule.
Upon violation of community control, a sentencing court may resentence a defendant only within a one-cell increase, and reasons relating to the violation may not support any additional departure.
[1] Upon violation of community control, a sentencing court may resentence a defendant only within a one-cell increase under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14),…
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 intelligenceJoseph Mitchell was charged with violating community control by possessing cocaine, failing to answer inquiries truthfully, failing to seek employment…
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 From Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Mitchell was charged with violating his community control by possessing cocaine, by failing to answer inquiries truthfully, by failing to seek employment as instructed, by failing to remain at his residence at a required time, and by making two sales of crack cocaine. Mitchell’s scoresheet, including a one-cell upward departure, placed him in the recommended range of twelve to thirty months’ incarceration. The trial judge sentenced Mitchell to five years imprisonment, citing as his reasons Mitchell’s short time on community control, continued involvement with drugs and escalating pattern of criminal activity. Mitchell appeals; we reverse.
Upon violation of community control, the sentencing court may resentence defendant only within a one-cell increase, Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14); reasons relating to the violation of community control may not be used to support any 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 resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. State, 600 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ritten sentencing order was prepared. [*475] On appeal to this court, Marshall and Calloway asserted error with regard to the convictions and sentences. The convictions were affirmed but the case was remanded for resentencing. See Marshall v. State, 554 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Defendants were resentenced and again given departure sentences. They have appealed, asserting that departure sentences should not have been imposed. Defendants’ initial argument is that the trial court misinterpreted the mandat…
-
Padgett v. State, 554 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…9); Bell v. State, 545 So. 2d 861 (Fla.1989); Tuthill v. State, 518 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). A one cell increase, as provided in the guidelines, is the only allowable departure, Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1989); Mitchell v. State, 554 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Fla.R.Crim P. 3.701(d)(14), if departure is appropriate. Sentence vacated; remanded for resen-tencing.…
Authorities Cited
- Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1989)
- Kramer v. State, 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Arcangeli v. Albertson's, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Hunnicutt v. State, 549 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Empire Marble & Granite, Inc. v. Ralph and Lorraine Bodek, 554 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Perez v. State, 554 So. 2d 14 (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)
- Therion C. Frierson v. State, 550 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Moran v. State, 550 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)