KEITH W. QUARLES, 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.
Keith Quarles appeals his sentencing for violation of community control, challenging an upward departure from sentencing guidelines. The appellate court vacates the sentence because the trial court's stated reasons for departure—violations of community control—are precluded by Lambert v. State and remands for resentencing within guidelines.
The upward departure was improper. The Lambert v. State opinion precludes the use of violations of community control as grounds for departure from the sentencing guidelines. The case is remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.
[1] Violations of community control cannot be used as grounds for an upward departure from sentencing guidelines.
[2] A defendant must be resentenced within the sentencing guidelines when the original sentence was based on impermissible grounds for departure.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The upward departure from the guidelines was based upon the violations of community control. The opinion in Lambert precludes the use of such violations as grounds for departure, and, therefore, we remand both eases for resentencing within the guidelines”
Establishes the legal holding that Lambert prohibits using community control violations as basis for sentencing departure
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceQuarles was sentenced to probation on April 9, 1987, for sale and possession of marijuana. He violated probation by committing new felonies on June 12…
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
PETERSON, Judge.
The defendant appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after the entry of an admission of violation of community control. The sentence was an upward departure from the guidelines. The sentence was imposed on December 21, 1988, and, of course, the trial court did not have the benefit of the opinion in Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989), at that time.1
The trial court’s reason for departure was stated as follows in the order supplementing judgment and sentence:
Defendant was sentenced on April 9, 1987, to probation. He violated his probation by committing new felonies on June 12, 1987. On July 31, 1987, he was sentenced to community control. He violated his community control on September 1, 1988. Two violations of supervision in less than one year. The violations of community control included the unauthorized change of residence, the failure to report to his community control officer, the unauthorized absence from his approved residence, and the failure to submit a urine sample.
The defendant was a community control-lee under two cases at the time of the admitted violations. The sentence for sale and possession of marijuana entered on April 9, 1987, was three years’ probation. This sentence was changed to two years’ community control, followed by three years’ probation when he was adjudicated guilty of criminal mischief on July 31,1987. The July 31, 1987, sentences on both cases were the same and concurrent.
When the defendant violated the terms of community control, he was sentenced on the underlying charges on both cases to serve two concurrent terms of five years’ incarceration, followed by three years’ probation. While the court had no score sheet before him, the parties believe that defendant’s scores would have placed him in the cell requiring a non-state prison sanction; a one-cell departure for violation of probation could have increased the sentence to 12 to 30 months’ incarceration.
The upward departure from the guidelines was based upon the violations of community control. The opinion in Lambert precludes the use of such violations as grounds for departure, and, therefore, we remand both eases for resentencing within the guidelines, as well as for the preparation of a currently calculated score sheet as required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(1).2
REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
COWART and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . The Lambert case was issued June 15, 1989, by the Florida Supreme Court.
. See also e.g., Washington v. State, 549 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyd v. State, 561 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701d.l4.2 SENTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED. DAUKSCH, COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. . See Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989); Ree v. State, 14 F.L.W. 565 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989); Quarles v. State, 556 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Barton v. State, 553 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). See also Jackson v. State, 560 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Wright v. State, 554 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); and Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).…
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1989)
- Johnson v. State, 549 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)