Colleton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Colleton v. State

618 So. 2d 316, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4991, 1993 WL 144083

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 1993

DocketNo. 92-00408

StatusPublished

This text of 618 So. 2d 316 (Colleton 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

Colleton v. State, 618 So. 2d 316, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4991, 1993 WL 144083 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

Michael Colleton appeals from a departure sentence composed of two concurrent five year prison terms imposed upon him following the revocation of his probation for two separate counts of possession of cocaine and one count of carrying a concealed firearm. We find it was error for the trial court to depart from the guidelines based upon “the timing, rapid succession, and number of violations of supervision.” Each of the foregoing reasons for departure has been rejected by the supreme court. Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992); State v. Simpson, 554 So.2d 506 (Fla.1989). Upon revoking probation, the trial court is confined to a single cell increase for each violation. Williams. The state contends that Colleton committed four violations of probation thus rendering the error harmless because his five year sentences represent a four cell enhancement from the original guidelines cell. We reject the state’s view. The record describes only three violations; thus we deem the error harmful. See Friedly v. State, 616 So.2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.

ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

Michael Colleton appeals from a departure sentence composed of two concurrent five year prison terms imposed upon him following the revocation of his probation for two separate counts of possession of cocaine and one count of carrying a concealed firearm. We find it was error for the trial court to depart from the guidelines based upon “the timing, rapid succession, and number of violations of supervision.” Each of the foregoing reasons for departure has been rejected by the supreme court. Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992); State v. Simpson, 554 So.2d 506 (Fla.1989). Upon revoking probation, the trial court is confined to a single cell increase for each violation. Williams. The state contends that Colleton committed four violations of probation thus rendering the error harmless because his five year sentences represent a four cell enhancement from the original guidelines cell. We reject the state’s view. The record describes only three violations; thus we deem the error harmful. See Friedly v. State, 616 So.2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.

ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

618 So. 2d 316, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4991, 1993 WL 144083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colleton-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack