ISAAC HARRIS, 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 Harris appeals his resentencing following probation revocation on eight felonies. The appellate court affirms most sentences but reverses the ninety-nine-year violation of probation sentence, requiring remand for resentencing consistent with recent Supreme Court decisions limiting departure sentences for probation violations.
The court affirms all sentences except the violation of probation sentence. The ninety-nine-year violation of probation sentence must be reversed and remanded because the trial court lacked guidance from two recent Supreme Court decisions that limit departure sentences for probation violations to a one-cell enhancement above the guideline recommendation.
[1] A trial court must articulate appropriate grounds for departure sentences in written form.
[2] A sentence for violation of probation may not depart beyond the one-cell enhancement permitted by the sentencing guidelines.
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“Although the trial judge listed valid reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines on all the sentences, he did not have the benefit of two recent supreme court decisions limiting the sentence for the underlying violation of probation offense.”
Establishes that while the trial court satisfied the prior appeal's requirements, new case law changed the applicable sentencing limits for probation violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was resentenced on eight felonies after probation revocation. The trial court imposed a ninety-nine-year sentence for the violation of probatio…
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 Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Isaac Harris appeals his resentencing on eight felonies following the revocation of his probation. We reverse only the sentence on the violation of probation.
This is the second time Harris has appealed his sentences. In an earlier opinion, Harris v. State, 531 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), this court reversed and remanded the case because the trial court failed to articulate appropriate grounds for its departure sentences under the sentencing guidelines, in that it erred in orally accepting the reasons submitted by the state without providing departure reasons in written form. Harris now challenges the new sentences imposed on remand.
We affirm all sentences except Harris’s sentence on the violation of probation for which he received ninety-nine years. Although the trial judge listed valid reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines on all the sentences, he did not have the benefit of two recent supreme court decisions limiting the sentence for the underlying violation of probation offense. On the violation of probation sentence, the trial court may not depart beyond the one-cell enhancement permitted by the sentencing guidelines. Ree v. State, No. 71,424 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989) [14 F.L.W. 565]; Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989). Because the trial judge imposed a sentence of ninety-nine years on Harris for the violation of probation to run consecutive to four other ninety-nine year terms, we must reverse and remand the sentence on the violation of probation. That sentence in effect constituted a guidelines departure from the recommended sentence of life. See Robinson v. State, 520 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1988). Based upon Ree and Lambert, therefore, on remand the trial court should impose a life sentence on the violation of probation offense to run concurrently with the other ninety-nine-year consecutive sentences. Appellant is required to be present at the resentencing. See Quarterman v. State, 506 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved, 527 So. 2d 1380 (1988).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing upon the violation of probation sentence. Otherwise affirmed.
FRANK, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duckett v. State, 750 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…guidelines. We concur with the circuit court’s view that five consecutive fifteen-year sentences do not exceed a guidelines sentence of life. Duckett contends that his sentences must be treated as departures under our decision in Harris v. State, 556 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In that case, we agreed with the trial court’s view that a sentence of five consecutive 99-year terms departed from the guidelines recommendation of life. But Harris is distinguishable. Whereas the 495-year sentence imposed in th…
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1989)
- THE Florida BAR v. Mullins, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1988)
- Robinson v. State, 520 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1988)
- Quarterman v. State, 506 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Harris v. State, 531 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)