ANTHONY HANNAH, 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.
Anthony Hannah appeals his probation revocation sentence, arguing the trial court felt constrained to impose a guidelines sentence rather than the lesser county jail sentence it initially intended. The court affirms, holding that upon revocation (as opposed to modification) of probation, the trial court must impose a sentence authorized by the original sentencing statute, which includes the guidelines sentence imposed.
The trial court properly imposed the guidelines sentence. Upon revocation of probation, the court must impose a sentence authorized by the original sentencing statute, which requires a guidelines sentence based on the scoresheet. The court could have imposed a lesser sentence only by modifying (not revoking) the probation.
[1] Upon revocation of probation, a trial court shall impose any sentence it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer on probation.
[2] A trial court may revoke, modify, or continue probation upon a violation.
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“upon a violation of probation, the trial court may 'revoke, modify, or continue the probation.' § 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). Griffin merely reaffirms this rule of law.”
Establishes the court's authority and clarifies that Griffin does not create new law but reaffirms existing statutory authority regarding probation violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHannah admitted violating his probation. The trial judge initially indicated an intention to sentence Hannah to 364 days in Orange County Jail with cr…
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 Probation Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Hannah appeals his sentence imposed after violating probation. He argues that the lower court improperly felt constrained to sentence him to a guidelines sentence upon revoking his probation. We affirm.
Hannah admitted violating his probation. The judge began to sentence Hannah as follows:
Pm going to sentence you to — I’m going to adjudicate you guilty, revoke and terminate your sentence of — or your probation and sentence you to 364 days in Orange County Jail, give you credit for 9 months and 87 days time served.
The state asked the court to sentence Hannah to a guidelines sentence based on Griffin v. State, 783 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). After considering Griffin, the court stated:
Griffin says that I can modify a person’s probation. If they violate probation, I can modify their probation and eventually do with — essentially, do a lot of different things. But if — in his case — Mr. Hannah’s case, I’m not modifying his probation; I’m just revoking his probation and sentencing him.
The judge then sentenced Hannah to 14.4 months in prison, with credit for time served, based on his scoresheet. Hannah argues that the judge misinterpreted Griffin, improperly feeling constrained to impose a guideline sentence of 14.4 months in prison instead of his original intention of imposing 364 days in county jail. The standard of review is de novo. See Schaal v. State, 743 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
The state correctly argues that upon a violation of probation, the trial court may “revoke, modify, or continue the probation.” § 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). Griffin merely reaffirms this rule of law. If the court chooses to revoke probation, it “shall ... impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer on probation or the offender into community control.” § 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). In the instant case, the judge could have sentenced Hannah to 364 days in jail by modifying the probation; he instead chose to revoke the probation. Hannah does not contest the validity of the scoresheet which yielded a minimum guidelines sentence of 14.4 months in prison. Accordingly, we affirm his sentence.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ulysses Jackson v. State, 925 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…., Associate Judge, concur. . The state cites to Lacey v. State, 831 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), for the proposition that the standard of review for sentencing [*1170] after a revocation of probation is de novo. Lacey cites to Hannah v. State, 814 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). However, Hannah cites to Schaal v. State, 743 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), for the proposition, but Schaal never mentions this. Our understanding is that a sentencing error constituting an illegal sentence would be reviewed…
-
Bush v. State, 74 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
-
Lacey v. State, 831 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…rial court erroneously felt obligated to impose the suspended sentence originally imposed when probation was granted. We agree and reverse and remand. The standard of review for sentencing after a revocation of probation is de novo. Hannah v. State, 814 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002.) The trial court clearly felt obligated to follow the original suspended sentence. In Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1988), the Florida Supreme Court addressed basic sentencing alternatives. The court discussed that: a jud…
Authorities Cited
- Griffin v. State, 783 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Schaal v. State, 743 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)