WILLIAM HENRY PRAY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Pray appeals his sentence of 15 years, followed by 15 years on probation, which he received after his probation was revoked in 1989. This was Pray’s second probation violation within a 3-year time span and both violations involved the commission of additional substantive crimes.
The trial judge imposed the sentence in this cause, which exceeded the one-cell bump-up, because Pray committed burglary and theft within 6 days after his release from prison. We are bound by the supreme court’s holdings that a departure beyond the one-cell bump-up is not permitted for any sentence imposed with revocation of probation, however egregious the circumstances or short the time. Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989); Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we quash the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Sentence QUASHED; REMANDED.
GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bonebright, 742 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…been told to sleep. After having been arrested on the charge of arson, appellee stated that, if the victim’s home had burned down, it had been an accident. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, agreeing with appellee that Moberly v. State, 562 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), was controlling. While the facts of Moberly appear very similar to those here, there are two significant distinguishing characteristics, one factual and the other legal. Factually, the court in Moberly noted that the door and win…
-
Freeman v. State, 574 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…on. In Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329, 1331 (Fla.1990), the Florida Supreme Court held that any departure for a probation violation is impermissible if it exceeds the one-cell increase permitted by. the sentencing guidelines.1 See also Pray v. State, 562 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (departure beyond one-cell bump-up is not permitted for any sentence imposed upon revocation of probation notwithstanding egregious circumstances or timing of the violation). Freeman finally contends, and the state agrees, that…
-
Perez v. State, 120 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…ly the de novo standard when reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002). As mentioned, the State presented no direct evidence of Perez’s guilt. And as we stated in Moberly v. State, 562 So. 2d 773, 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), if the circumstantial evidence furnishes only a suspicion of guilt, it is insufficient to prove arson. The evidence must be of a conclusive nature leading to a reasonable certainty that the defendant, not anyone else, commit…
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1989)
- Franklin v. State, 545 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1989)
- Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1989)