Bell v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Bell v. State

545 So. 2d 861, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 323, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 619, 1989 WL 73140

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 29, 1989

DocketNo. 72979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 545 So. 2d 861 (Bell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. State, 545 So. 2d 861, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 323, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 619, 1989 WL 73140 (Fla. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Bell v. State, 528 So.2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), the district court certified the following question of great public importance:

WHERE A TRIAL JUDGE FINDS THAT THE UNDERLYING REASONS FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION CONSTITUTE MORE THAN A MINOR INFRACTION AND ARE SUFFICIENTLY EGREGIOUS, MAY HE DEPART FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE GUIDELINES RANGE AND IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMIT EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT BEEN “CONVICTED” OF THE CRIMES WHICH THE TRIAL JUDGE CONCLUDED CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF HIS PROBATION.

The same court certified essentially the same question regarding violation of community control in Lambert v. State, 517 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), which we answered in the negative. Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). The same reasoning applies here because an actual prior conviction is necessary to support a guidelines departure for a probation violation as well as for a violation of community control. We therefore answer the certified question in the negative, quash Bell, and direct a remand for resentencing within the guidelines.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

In Bell v. State, 528 So.2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), the district court certified the following question of great public importance:

WHERE A TRIAL JUDGE FINDS THAT THE UNDERLYING REASONS FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION CONSTITUTE MORE THAN A MINOR INFRACTION AND ARE SUFFICIENTLY EGREGIOUS, MAY HE DEPART FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE GUIDELINES RANGE AND IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMIT EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT BEEN “CONVICTED” OF THE CRIMES WHICH THE TRIAL JUDGE CONCLUDED CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF HIS PROBATION.

The same court certified essentially the same question regarding violation of community control in Lambert v. State, 517 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), which we answered in the negative. Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). The same reasoning applies here because an actual prior conviction is necessary to support a guidelines departure for a probation violation as well as for a violation of community control. We therefore answer the certified question in the negative, quash Bell, and direct a remand for resentencing within the guidelines.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 So. 2d 861, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 323, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 619, 1989 WL 73140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-fla-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack