JEFFERY ANDERSON TEER, 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.
Departure sentence for probation violation reversed because it exceeded the one-cell increase permitted by sentencing guidelines under Ree v. State.
A departure sentence for probation violation is impermissible if it exceeds the one-cell increase permitted by the sentencing guidelines.
[1] Any departure sentence for probation violation that exceeds the one-cell increase permitted by sentencing guidelines is impermissible.
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 intelligenceTeer was sentenced to a departure sentence upon revocation of his probation and adjudication of burglary of a structure. The trial court cited his rep…
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 Burglary Of A Structure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jeffery Anderson Teer appeals a departure sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation and adjudication of the offense of burglary of a structure. We reverse and remand for resentencing. As reasons for its departure from the sentencing guidelines recommendation the court noted Teer’s repeated, persistent pattern of violating his probation and the occurrence of the violations within a short period of time. The recommended guidelines sentence, with a one cell increase for probation violation was community control or 12-30 months incarcertion.
The court’s grounds for departure would appear to be valid under Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1987); however, recent decisions apparently compel a contrary result. In Ree v. State, 14 FLW 565 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989) the supreme court held that any departure sentence for probation violation is impermissible if it exceeds the one cell increase permitted by the sentencing guidelines. In Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) the defendant had also committed two violations as had Teer, but the court concluded that Ree v. State precluded departure on this basis. Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines with only the permissible one cell increase for probation violation.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOOTH, THOMPSON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanders v. State, 560 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…rt v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989); Dewberry v. State, 546 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1989) (“The one-cell bump-up provided for in the guidelines is the only allowable increase."); Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851, 852 (Fla. 1989). See also Teer v. State, 557 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In a similar vein, it is an established rule that sentencing errors which are not discernible from the four corners of the record may not be raised on appeal in the absence of a contemporaneous objection. Dailey v. State, 488 S…1 / 2
-
Ramsey v. State, 562 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ate, 558 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ricketson v. State, 558 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Phaneuf v. State, 557 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Glenn v. State, 557 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Jackson, supra; Maddox, supra; Teer v. State, 557 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Perez v. State, 554 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Banks v. State, 553 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Ferguson v. State, 550 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). See also Scott v. State, 550 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. dismis…
-
Thicklin v. State, 578 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…for the prior conviction. The trial court gave at least one valid reason for departúre; but “any departure sentence for probation violation is impermissible if it exceeds the one cell increase permitted by the sentencing guidelines.” Teer v. State, 557 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (emphasis in original); see also Sanders v. State, 560 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). [*376] We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines or with a one cell increase pursuant to Rule of Criminal…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1987)
- Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)