TERRY LEON SHEFFIELD, 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.
This case involves two consolidated appeals by Mr. Sheffield. The first concerns an upward departure sentence for violating probation, which the court reversed due to exceeding sentencing guidelines. The second appeal addresses a contempt order, which was also reversed because the trial court failed to follow proper procedures.
The court held that the upward departure sentence was an improper deviation from the sentencing guidelines. The court also held that the contempt order was invalid because the trial court failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830.
[1] A trial court may not impose a sentence exceeding the recommended guidelines range upon revocation of probation without a valid reason for upward departure.
[2] A trial court commits error by imposing a sentence for a violation of probation that is an extreme upward departure from the sentencing guidelines, absent a valid justifi…
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“In light of Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989), we reverse the departure sentences and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.”
Establishes the reversal of the upward departure sentence based on precedent.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Sheffield appealed consecutive sentences totaling 70 years for violating probation by selling cocaine near a school. The maximum guideline sentenc…
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 Upward Departure From Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
In the first of these consolidated appeals, No. 89-00777, Mr. Sheffield appeals consecutive sentences, totalling 70 years’ incarceration, imposed on revocation of probation. He was initially sentenced to several concurrent 18-month periods of incarceration, followed by concurrent periods of probation. He violated his probation by selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. On sentencing upon violation of probation, the maximum recommended sentence under his guidelines scoresheet for these 1987 offenses, with a one-cell increase, was 3½ years’ incarceration. The trial court attempted this extreme upward departure because of the new substantive offense. In light of Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989), we reverse the departure sentences and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
In case No. 89-01198, Mr. Sheffield challenges the trial court’s order finding him in contempt of court during a separate and subsequent sentencing hearing on the offense of selling cocaine within the school zone. During that proceeding, there was some confusion regarding whether Mr. Sheffield’s plea agreement called for sentencing under the guidelines or as a habitual offender. The agreement called for a guidelines sentence. Mr. Sheffield interrupted the proceeding at a point when he thought he was about to be sentenced as a habitual offender. Before he understood that the court would sentence him under the guidelines, he quickly made three non-obscene comments of protest. Without placing Mr. Sheffield under oath or otherwise giving him an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, the trial court immediately adjudicated him in contempt and sentenced him to six months in the county jail, consecutive to any other sentence. Because the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of rule 3.830, we reverse the criminal contempt order and remand this case to the trial court for .further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHEB, Acting C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.