ALAN MILES PEEPLES, 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.
Alan Miles Peeples appeals his sentences imposed after probation revocations in three consolidated forgery cases. The appellate court vacated sentences that violated Florida's sentencing guidelines by imposing a two-cell increase upon a second probation violation and by resentencing for an offense for which appellant had already completed his sentence.
The trial court erred by imposing a new sentence for an offense in Case No. 88-450 that appellant had already completed, and by imposing a sentence that exceeded the guideline bump-up range through a two-cell increase upon a second probation violation. Florida's guidelines do not permit a two-cell increase upon a second violation of probation.
[1] A trial court errs by imposing a new sentence for an offense for which the defendant has already completed a sentence.
[2] A sentence exceeding the bump-up range of community control or 12-30 months incarceration is improper when the guidelines do not permit a two-cell increase upon a second…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court erred by imposing a new sentence for the offense in Case No. 88-450 because appellant had already completed a thirty month sentence for that offense.”
Establishes that double sentencing for the same offense was improper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was initially placed on five years probation for four forgery-related offenses. After probation revocation, he was sentenced to concurrent t…
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 Double Jeopardy (Implied) cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from three criminal cases which were consolidated for sentencing. Appellant was placed on five years probation for four forgery-related offenses. His probation was later revoked and he was adjudicated guilty as to each offense. With the one cell increase for violation of probation, appellant’s guideline range was community control or 12-30 months incarceration. See Rule 3.701(d)(14), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty months incarceration for two offenses (Case No. 88-450) to be followed by concurrent terms of five years probation for the other two offenses (Case Nos. 88-451 and 88-452).
Appellant completed his sentences in Case No. 88-450 and was released on probation. He again violated his probation and it was revoked. Appellant was again adjudicated guilty1 and sentenced to concurrent terms of 3¾⅛ years incarceration for one offense in Case No. 88-450 and the offense in Case No. 88-451. His probation was reimposed in Case No. 88-452.
The trial court erred by imposing a new sentence for the offense in Case No. 88-450 because appellant had already completed a thirty month sentence for that offense. Furthermore, the 3½ year sentence in Case No. 88-451 exceeded the bump-up range of community control or 12-30 months incarceration. The guidelines do not permit a two-cell increase upon a second violation of probation. See Denegal v. State, 562 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Niehenke v. State, 561 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Appellant has already completed the maximum incarceration available under the guidelines. .
The sentences in Case Nos. 88-450 and 88-451 are vacated. The probation term in Case No. 88-452 is affirmed, although we note that further probation appears to be unenforceable since current guideline procedure permits no additional incarceration in the event of a violation. The judgment rendered after the second revocation of probation is superfluous and hereby stricken. See, supra, note 1.
JUDGMENT STRICKEN; SENTENCES VACATED.
GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Although not raised on appeal, appellant should not have been convicted twice for the same offenses,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thicklin v. State, 599 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…owed by two years of community control reversed where guidelines range, including one-cell increase for violation of community control, was community control or one to 4-V2 years incarceration, and no departure reasons were given); Peeples v. State, 571 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Appellant’s second argument deals with the allegedly more severe sanctions imposed at resentencing. The two-step analysis set forth in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), is applicable,…
-
Pate v. State, 613 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…f appellant’s three original offenses. On appeal, the state correctly concedes that appellant should not have received a revocation sentence for grand theft where [*544] he had already completed his sentence for this offense. See Peeples v. State, 571 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Concerning the two remaining revocation sentences, we agree with appellant that it was error to revoke both probationary terms where the affidavit of violation only referenced one of the corresponding counts. As in Hicks v. St…
Authorities Cited
- Niehenke v. State, 561 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Denegal v. State, 562 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)