JEFFREY WATSON, 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.
The court vacated departure sentences imposed following probation and community control violations because the reasons given for departure were impermissibly based on the violations themselves rather than independent factors.
Departure sentences imposed solely on grounds related to probation and community control violations must be vacated where the sentencing guidelines already account for such violations.
[1] Sentencing departure based on reasons that are directly or indirectly related to probation or community control violations is improper where the guidelines sentence alrea…
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 intelligenceWatson was sentenced to departure sentences following violations of probation and community control. The trial court cited multiple reasons for the de…
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 Sentencing Factors cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This case is very similar to the recent case of Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), in that various reasons given for imposing a departure sentence following a violation of community control and probation all, directly or indirectly, are related to the violation of probation, i.e., (1) the defendant, while on probation and .community control, committed offenses; (2) some of the violations of probation and community control were second violations; (3) the timing of the commission of the subsequent offenses which constituted the violation of probation and community control and (4) the failure of past rehabilitation and improbability of future rehabilitation as shown by the fact that the probation and community control which the defendant violated were rehabilitative opportunities which were unsuccessful.
Accordingly, based on Maddox and cases and reasons therein, the departure sentences in this case are vacated and the cause is remanded with directions to impose a sentence consistent with the recommended guidelines sentence which itself factors in a one-cell increase for probation violations (Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701, subd. d.14.). See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987).
SENTENCES VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.
HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramsey v. State, 562 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…one cell increase for violation of probation. Ree v. State, 14 F.L.W. 565 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989); Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1989); Dewberry v. State, 546 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989); Watson v. State, 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.…
-
Donnie Glenn, Jr. v. State, 557 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…on of probation. Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989); Ree v. State, 14 F.L.W. 565, — So. 2d - (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989); Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). See also Watson v. State, 558 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, the sentence below is vacated and this cause remanded for resentenc-ing within the guidelines. SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Lipscomb v. State, 573 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990); Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1989); Dewberry v. State, 546 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989); Ramsey v. State, 562 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Watson v. State, 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 v. State, 556 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Maddox v. St…
Authorities Cited
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)