CLIFFORD WAYNE CROWDER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Defendant placed on probation before October 1, 1983, is entitled to elect sentencing under guidelines upon probation revocation after that date, and the trial court erred in failing to provide this option.
A defendant placed on probation before October 1, 1983, is entitled to elect sentencing under the guidelines upon revocation of probation after October 1, 1983.
[1] A defendant placed on probation before October 1, 1983, has the right to elect sentencing under the guidelines upon revocation of probation occurring after October 1, 198…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[W]here a trial judge finds that the underlying reasons for violation of probation (as opposed to the mere fact of violation) are more than a minor infraction and are sufficiently egregious, he is entitled to depart from the presumptive guidelines range and impose an appropriate sentence within the statutory limit.”
Explaining that while defendants have the right to elect guidelines sentencing, trial courts retain discretion to depart from guidelines for egregious violations.
Defendant Crowder was placed on probation before October 1, 1983, and his probation was revoked after that date. The trial court imposed a sentence wi…
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 Departure From Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
We reverse the sentence imposed upon revocation of probation.
Having been placed on probation before October 1, 1983, defendant is entitled to elect to be sentenced under the guidelines upon revocation of probation after October 1, 1983. See State v. Boyett, 467 So. 2d 997, 998 (Fla.1985); Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Accordingly, the court erred in failing to afford defendant this option. Baker v. State, 659 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Nealy v. State, 518 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Sias v. State, 464 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Schmitt v. State, 458 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Upon resentencing, defendant shall be permitted to elect a guidelines sentence. However, as noted in State v. Pentaude, 500 So. 2d 526, 528 (Fla.1987), this rule does not completely limit the trial court’s discretion in sentencing. “[W]here a trial judge finds that the underlying reasons for violation of probation (as opposed to the mere fact of violation) are more than a minor infraction and are sufficiently egregious, he is entitled to depart from the presumptive guidelines range and impose an appropriate sentence within the statutory limit.” Pentaude, 500 So. 2d at 528.
Sentence reversed and cause remanded for resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gale L. Brown v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 820 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…nd ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur. . Roman v. A-1 Specialty Gasolines, Inc., 682 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Tarr v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 651 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). . Novas v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 735 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Tarr; Campeanu v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 629 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). .Dean v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 598 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Marcelo v. Dept. of Labor and Employment Sec.,…
-
Robinson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 899 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…(Fla. 5th DCA 1995). . Suluki v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 644 So. 2d 552, 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). . See St. Augustine Church v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 754 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Novas v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 735 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Fink v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 665 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).…
-
Carroll v. State, 20 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…sentencing hearing. He contends that at such a hearing, he would have been allowed to elect to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. See Logan v. State, 921 So. 2d 556 (Fla.2005); Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1989); Crowder v. State, 735 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The defendant’s theory is that a sentence under the 1983 version of the guidelines, see Logan, 921 So. 2d at 560, would result in a significantly lower sentence — although this part of the defendant’s argument would not hold true…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Pentaude, 500 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1987)
- Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- State v. Coye Elliott Boyett, 467 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1985)
- Schmitt v. State, 458 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Baker v. State, 659 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Sias v. State, 464 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Ronda C. Weinstock, Ph.D. v. Groth, 659 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Nealy v. State, 518 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)