ANTHONY SMITH, ETC., 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.
Court affirmed convictions but reversed sentences for three third-degree felonies because trial court imposed sentences exceeding guidelines without written reasons and exceeding statutory maximums, remanding for resentencing within guidelines.
Sentences exceeding the sentencing guidelines range by more than one bracket without written reasons for departure must be reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines range.
[1] Sentencing departures exceeding one bracket above the guidelines range require written reasons; absence of such reasons mandates reversal and resentencing within the guid…
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 intelligenceSmith was convicted in three criminal proceedings involving third-degree felonies. The trial court sentenced him to 3½ years in prison followed by 1½ …
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 Written Reasons For Sentencing Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The state agrees that the sentences imposed on Smith for three criminal proceedings involving third degree felonies exceeded the recommended sentencing guidelines range, and the permitted one-bracket bump-up for violation of probation, without any written reasons being given for the additional departure. In addition, the sentences imposed in two of the cases also exceed the statutory maximum for third degree felonies. The three cases had been combined below for sentencing.
The trial court sentenced Smith, after remand, to 3V2 years in prison followed by IV2 years on community control for one offense (Case No. 87-8165). It left standing the sentences of 3½ years in prison followed by 2½ years on community control for two others (Case Nos. 86-8309 and 86-7238). Based on Smith’s scoresheet, three years in prison is the maximum bump-up allowed without giving written reasons for departure, and the addition thereafter of community control further exceeds the permissible guidelines sentence. Monroe v. State, 539 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). See State v. VanKooten, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1988); Williams v. State, 525 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s convictions in all three cases, but we reverse the sentences imposed and remand for resentencing within the maximum guidelines range of three years in prison.
Convictions AFFIRMED; SENTENCES QUASHED; and REMANDED for resentencing.
DANIEL, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russo v. State, 603 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…court vacated the modification order, and the portion of the revocation order based on the violation of the added condition of probation. 584 So. 2d at 1112. See also Weidmann v. State, 582 So. 2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Brenatelli v. State, 555 So. 2d 1315, 1316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The record in this case reflects that the trial court added a new condition of community control without notice and hearing, when there had been no violation of community control. Although the condition that appellant res…
-
Zepeda v. State, 658 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…rial court erred when it required Zepeda to stay away from the victim. This enhancement of Zepeda’s probationary sentence was improper absent a finding of violation of probation. See Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1994); Brenatelli v. State, 555 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we strike this additional condition of probation. AFFIRMED as modified. DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. VanKOOTEN, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Bodine, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1988)
- Williams v. State, 525 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Monroe v. State, 539 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)