STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
MARK ANTHONY NIEHENKE, RESPONDENT
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 not limited to a one-cell bump in sentencing a multiple probation violator who has already served time permitted under sentencing guidelines.
The case involves a certified question regarding sentencing limitations for multiple probation violators who have served the maximum time under senten…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review Niehenke v. State, 561 So. 2d 1218, 1219-20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), in which the court certified the following question as being of great public importance:
WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF FRANKLIN V. STATE, 545 SO.2D 851 (FLA.1989), AND LAMBERT V. STATE, 545 SO.2D 838 (FLA.1989), A TRIAL COURT IS LIMITED TO THE ONE-CELL BUMP IN SENTENCING A MULTIPLE PROBATION VIOLATOR WHO HAS ALREADY SERVED ALL OF THE TIME PERMITTED UNDER THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, INCLUDING THE ONE-CELL BUMP?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In our opinion in Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992), we held that in the case of multiple violations of probation, sentences may be bumped one cell or guideline range for each violation. Therefore, as phrased, we answer the certified question in the negative. We quash the decision below to the extent that it conflicts with Williams and remand the case for disposition according to the rationale of that opinion.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J. and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- Niehenke v. State, 561 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)