STEVEN E. MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1999-12-15
No. 99-03244
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and GREEN and SALCINES, JJ„ Concur.
747 So. 2d 427 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1999)

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.


Holding

The court held that a cell bump for community control violation is inapplicable to offenses committed after October 1, 1995, and thus the sentencing court needed written reasons for departure.


Facts & Procedural History

Steven E. Moore sought postconviction relief, claiming his attorney was ineffective for not objecting to a departure sentence imposed without written …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*428] PER CURIAM.

Steven E. Moore appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse as to Moore’s claim that his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the sentencing court’s imposition of a departure sentence without written reasons. We affirm the balance of the order without comment.

Moore’s claim is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. See Pilkington v. State, 734 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In denying Moore’s claim, the trial court concluded that the sentencing court, following Moore’s violation of community control, had the authority to use a one-cell bump and sentence him in the next higher cell without providing written reasons. We disagree.

Moore committed his offenses on June 23, 1996. Imposition of a cell bump for a violation of community control is inapplicable to the sentencing guidelines for offenses committed on or after October 1, 1995. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.991. Accordingly, the trial court’s summary denial of Moore’s claim on this basis was erroneous.

We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record that set forth the reasons for the departure sentence or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and GREEN and SALCINES, JJ„ Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw