ROBERT JAMES, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The trial court may impose any sentence that could have been originally imposed, with credit for time served, after a probation violation, unless valid reasons for departure are given.
A defendant received a sentence of incarceration followed by probation. After violating probation, the trial court sought to impose a new sentence.…
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 Reason for Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review James v. State, 543 So. 2d 236, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (on rehearing), in which the district court certified the following as a question of great public importance:
Having sentenced a defendant to a term of incarceration followed by probation or community control, without suspension of any part of the period of incarceration, may the trial court, after a violation of the probation or community control, impose any sentence that could have been originally imposed with credit for time served and within the sentencing guidelines unless valid reasons for departure are given?
We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section § 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
The certified question presents an issue that is identical to the one we decide today in State v. Watts, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla.1990). For the reasons we state in Watts, we quash the opinion of the court below and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with Watts.
It is so ordered. EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Watts, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1990)…o the youthful offender act, section 958.14, Florida Statutes? Hamilton, 553 So. 2d at 389. See also James v. State, 543 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (on rehearing), review granted, No. 74,405 (Fla. Oct. 23, 1989). We decide today James v. State, 558 So. 2d 1000 (Fla.1990). . Article III, section 32 of the Florida Constitution (1885), provided: The repeal or amendment of any Criminal Statute shall not effect the prosecution or punishment of any crime committed before such repeal or amendment. Courts have…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Hiram Lee Bauman, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Watts, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1990)
- James v. State, 543 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)