ISAAC CHESLEY HINES, 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.
Isaac Hines appeals his 5-year sentence imposed after violating probation on a felony DUI conviction, challenging the trial court's reasons for departing upward from sentencing guidelines. The court held that departure sentences following probation revocation cannot be based on new offenses for which the defendant has not been convicted, and vacated the sentence as excessive.
A trial court may not use new offenses constituting probation violations as grounds for a guidelines departure unless the defendant has been convicted of those offenses. The 5-year sentence was improper because a one-cell guideline increase would have permitted only 12 to 30 months incarceration.
[1] A departure sentence based on new offenses constituting a probation violation requires prior conviction for those offenses.
[2] Reasons for deviating from sentencing guidelines cannot include factors relating to arrests without conviction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If new offenses constituting a probation violation are to be used as grounds for departure when sentencing for the original offense, prior conviction on the new offenses is required.”
Establishes the core holding that convictions are required before using new offenses as grounds for departure in probation violation sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHines pleaded guilty to felony DUI and driving with a suspended license, receiving 60 days and 6 months jail time plus 4 years probation. While on pro…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.701(d)(14) cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Chief Judge.
Defendant, Isaac Chesley Hines, appeals his sentence for felony DUI following admission by him of a violation of probation. On appeal, Hines contends that the reasons stated by the trial court for imposing a departure sentence are invalid. We agree.
Hines initially entered a written plea of guilty to felony DUI and driving while his license was suspended. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 60 days and 6 months in the Marion County Jail followed by a period of 4 years probation. He was subsequently charged with, and admitted, violating the terms of his probation for which the trial court revoked probation and imposed a sentence of 5 years incarceration.
There were no convictions for the offenses constituting the probation violations. In Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838, 841 (Fla.1989), the Florida Supreme Court stated:
If new offenses constituting a probation violation are to be used as grounds for departure when sentencing for the original offense, prior conviction on the new offenses is required. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll) provides in relevant part that:
Reasons for deviating from the guidelines shall not include factors relating to prior arrests without conviction. Reasons for deviating from the guidelines shall not include factors relating to the instant offenses for which convictions have not been obtained.
The committee note to the rule states:
The court is prohibited from considering offenses for which the offender has not been convicted.
Though the note and rule are silent as to whether they apply to conduct constituting probation violation, they reasonably can be so read. Where a criminal statute is susceptible of different interpretations, it must be construed in favor of the accused. § 775.021(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). This Court has consistently required prior conviction for guideline departure in original sentencing proceedings. See State v. Jaggers, 526 So. 2d 682, 684 (Fla.1988) (“Charges of criminal activity alone have never provided valid grounds for departure.”); Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla.1986) (“permitting departures for an offense for which a defendant has not been convicted is clearly prohibited.”). Policy considerations that mandate conviction prior to departure at an original sentencing are equally applicable to sentencing following probation violation.
See also Washington v. State, 549 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) in which this court stated that a guidelines departure for probation violations that exceeds the one-cell bump-up contravened Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14) and was therefore proscribed. A one-cell upward increase in the matter sub judice called for a maximum sentence of 12 to 30 months incarceration. The 5 year sentence imposed was therefore improper. SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller v. State, 588 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ce, or depriving a law enforcement officer of his means of protection. It is well settled that departure may not be based on offenses for which the defendant has not been convicted. State v. Simpson, 554 So. 2d 506 (Fla. [*12] 1989); Hines v. State, 554 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we vacate the departure sentence. We find appellant’s other points on appeal to be without merit. SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1989)
- Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Jaggers, 526 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1988)
- Johnson v. State, 549 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)