STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
MARIO ROA, 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.
The court held that multiple probation violations do not automatically justify a departure sentence, but sentences may be adjusted within guidelines for each violation.
The case involved a defendant who violated probation multiple times. The appellate court's decision conflicted with a prior Supreme Court ruling on se…
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
GRIMES, Justice.
We review Roa v. State, 574 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), because of its conflict with Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.
The history of this case is well stated in the opinion below. The court held (1) that two previous violations of probation justified an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines upon a third probation violation, and (2) that because Roa had just one previous violation, he could only be sentenced within a range which permitted a one-cell bump above the recommended guidelines.
In Williams, this Court recently held that multiple violations of probation did not warrant a departure sentence but concluded that sentences may be bumped one cell or guideline range for each violation. Therefore, because Roa had violated probation on two occasions, he could have been sentenced within a range which permitted a two-cell bump above the recommended sentencing guidelines. We are advised, however, that following receipt of the mandate of the district court of appeal, Roa was actually sentenced within the guidelines. As a consequence, there is no need for resentencing because the trial court was not obligated to bump Roa’s sentence.
Accordingly, we approve the opinion below except to the extent that its rationale conflicts with Williams and this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, BARKETT, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Inmon v. State, 642 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ases where there are multiple violations of probation, the sentences may be bumped up one cell or guideline range for each violation). However, bump ups for violation of probation are not mandatory but discretionary with the judge. See State v. Roa, 599 So. 2d 995 (Fla.1992). Appellant’s sentence of seven years on the extortion charge exceeded the permitted range with or without a bump up; the sentence of five years for tampering with the evidence would be appropriate only with a bump up. The trial court’s s…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- ROA v. State, 574 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)