Barnhart v. State

602 So. 2d 1001, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9140, 1992 WL 202002
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Barnhart v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3788
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 19, 1992·No. No. 91-03125·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After multiple violations of probation and community control, appellant was sentenced in excess of the guidelines for his conviction of delivery and possession of cocaine. The trial judge did not provide written reasons for departure but indicated at sentencing that it was for the previous violations of probation.

Even if the trial judge had listed the multiple violations of probation in a written departure order, that is not a valid reason to depart from the guidelines. Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992). However, pursuant to that case it is permissible to “bump up” one cell for each violation of probation. We, therefore, reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing in compliance with Williams. Otherwise, affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barnhart v. State, 602 So. 2d 1001, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9140, 1992 WL 202002 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

602 So. 2d 1001 (Barnhart v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. State
594 So. 2d 273 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)