JAMES BLOUNT, JR., 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.
James Blount appeals his sentencing for cocaine possession and resisting arrest, challenging the trial court's assessment of 36 community sanction violation points rather than 12 points under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statute limits assessments to 12 points per successive probation violation, not per case.
The statute limits community sanction violation points to 12 for each new successive violation created by a felony conviction. The term 'successive' means successive probation violations, not the number of separate cases, probation conditions violated, or instances of probation violation. Therefore, 36 points was improper; only 12 points should have been assessed.
[1] Community sanction violation points under section 921.0024(1)(b), Florida Statutes, are limited to 12 points for each successive violation, not for each case in which a v…
[2] The term 'successive' in the context of community sanction violation points refers to successive probation violations, not the number of cases before the court or the num…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the Legislature is limiting at 12 points the number of community sanction violation points that may be assessed for each new successive violation created by a felony conviction”
Establishes the statutory cap on community sanction violation points per successive violation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlount pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine and resisting arrest with violence. He was serving concurrent community control (probation) in thre…
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 Community Sanction Violation Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Blount, Jr., appeals the sentence entered upon his plea of no contest to possession of cocaine and resisting arrest with violence.
Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously applied section 921.0024(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.703(d)(17) by assessing 36 community sanction violation points, rather than 12 points, on his sentencing guidelines score-sheet for a violation of community control being served concurrently in three separate cases.
Appellant argues that, under this statute and rule, the state can assess only 12 community sanction violation points for each violation proceeding.
The state argues that, under section 921.0024(l)(b), 12 community sanction violation points may be assessed for each of the three prior cases for which appellant’s new felony convictions constitute a community sanction violation.
We find the state’s argument without merit. We have recently held that under section 921.0024(l)(b), “the Legislature is limiting at 12 points the number of community sanction violation points that may be assessed for each new successive violation created by a felony conviction.” Brown v. State, 741 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(emphasis supplied). “Successive” in this context means successive probation violations, not the number of cases before the court for sentencing, not the number of probation conditions a defendant violated, and not the number of times he violated probation. (Slip opinion pp. 6-7). See also Turner v. State, 735 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); and Williams v. State, 720 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Thus, it was error to assess 36 community sanction violation points based on the rationale that appellant’s new felony convictions violated his community sanction sentences in each of the three separate cases.
REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.
KAHN, WEBSTER AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grubb v. State, 748 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…t in Brown could be assessed only thirty-six community sanction violation points for the three successive violations (twelve points each) even though he may have been serving more than one probationary sentence at the time. See also Blount v. State, 743 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(holding same). Similarly, Grubb, in the instant case, was serving two separate probationary sentences when he violated several of the technical conditions of his probation. Rule 3.703(d)(17) provides that where the violation is…
Authorities Cited
- Normando R. Brown v. State, 741 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Williams v. State, 720 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Turner v. State, 735 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)