PETER J. O'KEEFE, 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.
Peter O'Keefe appeals his four-year prison sentence imposed after his third probation violation. The Florida appellate court affirmed the sentence, holding that under Williams v. State, trial courts may increase a defendant's guideline sentencing range by one cell for each probation violation, and O'Keefe's sentence fell within the guidelines as adjusted.
The sentence was within the guidelines and properly imposed. Under Williams v. State, sentences may be bumped one cell or guideline range for each violation of probation. O'Keefe's four-year sentence represents a three-cell increase from the initial presumptive range—one cell for each of his three violations—and therefore falls within the permitted guidelines.
[1] A trial court may depart from sentencing guidelines when a defendant has committed multiple violations of probation.
[2] Sentences may be increased by one guideline cell or range for each violation of probation.
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 the case of multiple violations of probation, sentences may be bumped one cell or guideline range for each violation”
The controlling precedent from Williams v. State that permits guideline adjustments for probation violations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1988, O'Keefe pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft and was placed on probation. He violated probation in 1988 (first violation), resulting in ext…
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 Incarceration cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
Having withdrawn our previous opinion issued in this case, we substitute the following opinion in its place. In 1988 appellant was placed on probation after having pled nolo contendere to grand theft, a third degree felony. Later that year appellant was charged with violating his probation. Appellant pled nolo contendere to the violation, the trial court adjudicated him guilty of the grand theft offense and modified his probation by extending it for an additional year. In 1990, after appellant violated probation for the second time, the trial court revoked probation and then reimposed probation for a period of five years. In 1991 appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to his third violation of probation. Appellant’s guideline score-sheet reflected a recommended range of any nonstate prison sanction. With the one cell increase for violation of probation, appellant’s recommended range authorized incarceration of up to 2¾⅛ years.1 The trial court revoked probation and then departed from the guidelines because of appellant’s “repeated violations of probation.” Appellant was sentenced to four years incarceration.
In Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1992), the Supreme Court stated that the holding in Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992), is that in the case of multiple violations of probation, sentences may be bumped one cell or guideline range for each violation. In the instant case, appellant’s presumptive sentencing range without any increase for violation of probation is “any nonstate prison sanction.” Appellant’s sentence of four years represents a three cell increase from the initial presumptive range, a one cell increase for each violation of probation. As such, this sentence falls within the guidelines and is, therefore, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Appellant committed the grand theft offense prior to July 1, 1988, the effective date of the amendment to Rule 3.988 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure establishing the broader permitted sentencing ranges. § 921.0015, Fla. Stat. (1988 Supp.). Therefore, these permitted ranges are not applicable.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clenney Terrell Davis v. State, 606 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…d its prior Williams decision, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992), and held that in case of multiple violations of probation, sentences may be bumped one cell or guideline range for each violation pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14). See O’Keefe v. State, 595 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). The fourth cell had a permitted range of 2V2 to 5¥2 years’ incarceration, but the trial court orally pronounced a 15-year prison sentence, to be consecutive to Case Nos. 86-2174, 88-1989, 89-368, and an unscored Leon County conv…
-
James v. State, 597 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…violations of probation, the sentence may be successively bumped to one higher cell for each violation.” Therefore, the sentence in this case is set aside and the cause remanded for resen-tencing consistent with Williams. See also O’Keefe v. State, 595 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Reversed and remanded. THREADGILL, J„ and CASE, JAMES R., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Bedford v. State, 598 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…e violations of probation, the sentence may be successively bumped to one higher cell for each violation.” Therefore, the sentence in this case is set aside and the cause remanded for resentencing consistent with Williams. See also O’Keefe v. State, 595 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and BLUE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- Lucious Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1992)