CHUCK BROWN, 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.
Chuck Brown appeals his 25-year sentence for multiple offenses and violations of probation/community control, arguing that the trial court could only increase his sentence within the recommended guidelines range, not the broader permitted range. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that trial courts have discretion to sentence defendants within the increased permitted range after probation or community control violations.
Trial courts have the discretion to sentence defendants within the increased permitted range after violations of probation or community control, not merely within the recommended range. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14) permits a one-cell increase to the next higher guidelines range, which includes the permitted as well as recommended sentences.
[1] A trial court has discretion to sentence a defendant within the permitted range of the guidelines after a violation of probation or community control.
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(8) defines "permitted range" as allowing sentencing judges additional discretion to increase or decrease a recommended sentenc…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 permitted ranges allow the sentencing judge additional discretion when the particular circumstances of a crime or defendant make it appropriate to increase or decrease the recommended sentence without the requirement of finding reasonable justification to do so and without the requirement of a written explanation.”
Establishes that permitted ranges provide judges greater discretion than recommended ranges without requiring written justification
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was convicted of multiple offenses with a guidelines score of 253, resulting in a recommended range of 12-17 years and a permitted range of 9-22…
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 Guideline Sentencing Range cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant Chuck Brown appeals his twenty-five year sentences for a number of offenses and for violating probation and community control. His guidelines score was 253, which results in a recommended range of twelve to seventeen years in prison and a permitted range of nine to twenty-two years. For Brown’s violations of probation, the trial court increased the incar-cerative term one cell to the permitted range of twelve to twenty-seven years, and sentenced Brown to twenty-five years in prison. Brown claims that the trial court had the discretion to extend the term only into the recommended range, but not into the permitted range. We disagree and affirm.
No Florida court appears to have directly ruled on the issue appellant raises, although several decisions reflect that other courts approve of bumping up into the permitted range. See, e.g., Washington v. State, 564 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Wright v. State, 560 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(8) explains the terms “recommended range” and “permitted range”:
Guidelines Ranges: The recommended sentences provided in the guidelines grids are assumed to be appropriate for the composite score of the offender. A range is provided in order to permit some discretion. The permitted ranges allow the sentencing judge additional discretion when the particular circumstances of a crime or defendant make it appropriate to increase or decrease the recommended sentence without the requirement of finding reasonable justification to do so and without the requirement of a written explanation.
Subsection (d)(14) authorizes the one-cell increase under the following circumstances:
Sentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control must be in accordance with the guidelines. The sentence imposed after revocation of probation or community control may be included within the original cell (guidelines range) or may be increased to the next higher cell (guidelines range) without requiring a reason for departure.
Because subsection (d)(14) permits a bump-up to the next higher cell within the guidelines range, and the definition of “guidelines range” in subsection (d)(8) includes permitted as well as recommended sentences, we hold that the trial court has the discretion to sentence a defendant within the increased permitted range after violation of probation or community control.
AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manuel v. State, 582 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…merit. Following revocation of community control, a trial court has the discretion to impose a sentence in the original cell or in the next higher cell, including the permitted range, without providing written reasons for departure. Brown v. State, 581 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The trial court in this case only bumped the appellant’s sentence one cell for the revocation of community control and then sentenced the appellant within the permitted range of that cell. Thus, upon remand the trial court may a…
-
Collins v. State, 596 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…979. However, after revocation of probation or community control, the trial court may impose sentence in accordance with the original cell, or with the next higher cell, without a written departure reason. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)14; Brown v. State, 581 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In VanKooten v. State, 522 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla.1988), the supreme court ruled that when so provided by the guidelines cell, either community control or incarceration may be imposed, but not both. Subsequently, in Ewing v. Stat…1 / 2
-
Holloman v. State, 600 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…sons for departure. State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1989). Otherwise, it may impose a sentence in the original cell or in the next higher cell, including the permitted range, without providing written reasons for departure. Brown v. State, 581 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also Manuel. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, COWART and PETERSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Washington v. State, 564 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Wright v. State, 560 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)