MICHAEL ROBERT JACKSON, 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.
A trial court is limited to a one-cell bump-up in sentencing upon revocation of community control or probation.
Defendant's community control was revoked twice, and the trial court imposed a two-cell bump-up in sentencing. The defendant had initially pleaded gui…
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was placed on community control for two years after pleading guilty to the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Defendant’s community control was subsequently revoked.1 Defendant was sentenced to 4¾⅛ years incarceration, followed by IOV2 years probation. Defendant’s sentencing guidelines score-sheet initially placed defendant in the second cell of community control or 12-30 months incarceration. With the one-cell “bump-up” for unsuccessful supervision, defendant could have been sentenced within the guidelines to 21/¾-31/2 years incarceration. Defendant’s 4½ year term of incarceration was described by the trial court as a two-cell “bump-up” resulting from defendant’s second violation of community control.2
The case law is well established that a trial court is limited to only a one-cell “bump-up” upon revocation of community control or probation. See Ree v. State, 14 F.L.W. 565 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989); Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1989); State v. Tuthill, 545 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989); Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (two violations of probation as to same offense do not justify departure sentence). The trial court’s two-cell “bump-up” was improper and constituted an unauthorized departure from the sentencing guidelines.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
COBB, COWART and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Defendant pled guilty to violating his community control. The alleged violations were two fold; (1) Defendant consumed alcoholic beverages on May 31, 1988, and (2) defendant was not at his approved residence on May 31, 1988.
. Evidently, defendant’s community control was simply reinstated after his first violation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 564 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…e were added to scoresheets effective July 1, 1988 with the adoption of ch. 88-131, Laws of Florida. See also Rule 3.701d.8. . See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701d.ll. See also Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989); Jackson v. State, 560 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ree v. State, 14 F.L.W. 565 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989); Wright v. State, 554 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); and Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). . Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). . See note 1 and Wigg…
-
Boyd v. State, 561 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…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). . See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987).…
-
Wright v. State, 577 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…range. The trial court is limited to a one-cell bump from the original recommended sentencing range upon revocation of community control or probation for a second violation. Niehenke v. State, 561 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Jackson -v. State, 560 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); see Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990); Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989); Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Since Wright did not commit a new su…
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1989)
- Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1989)
- Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- State v. Tuthill, 545 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1989)