Bedford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bedford v. State

598 So. 2d 285, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5257, 1992 WL 101491

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1992

DocketNo. 91-01463

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 598 So. 2d 285 (Bedford v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bedford v. State, 598 So. 2d 285, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5257, 1992 WL 101491 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals his revocation of probation and resulting ten year prison sentence. We find no merit in the appellant’s claim that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke probation and thus affirm as to the revocation.

On revocation of probation, the trial court in sentencing the appellant departed upward more than one cell based on the appellant’s having had multiple violations of probation. Subsequently, the Florida Supreme Court held that multiple violations of probation are not a proper reason for a guidelines departure. Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 284 (Fla.1992). Williams also held, however, that “where there are multiple violations of probation, the sentence may be successively bumped to one higher cell for each violation.” Therefore, the sentence in this case is set aside and the cause remanded for resentencing consistent with Williams. See also O’Keefe v. State, 595 So.2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals his revocation of probation and resulting ten year prison sentence. We find no merit in the appellant’s claim that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke probation and thus affirm as to the revocation.

On revocation of probation, the trial court in sentencing the appellant departed upward more than one cell based on the appellant’s having had multiple violations of probation. Subsequently, the Florida Supreme Court held that multiple violations of probation are not a proper reason for a guidelines departure. Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 284 (Fla.1992). Williams also held, however, that “where there are multiple violations of probation, the sentence may be successively bumped to one higher cell for each violation.” Therefore, the sentence in this case is set aside and the cause remanded for resentencing consistent with Williams. See also O’Keefe v. State, 595 So.2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and BLUE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 So. 2d 285, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5257, 1992 WL 101491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bedford-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack