Cummins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cummins v. State

519 So. 2d 718, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 328, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 348, 1988 WL 6425

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 1988

DocketNo. 87-770

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 519 So. 2d 718 (Cummins 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

Cummins v. State, 519 So. 2d 718, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 328, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 348, 1988 WL 6425 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

Ronald Cummins was placed on three years’ probation in October, 1985, for the offense of dealing in stolen property.¹ In November, 1986, Cummins was arrested for grand theft.² Cummins pled guilty to the grand theft charge and admitted the probation violation. The trial court, relying on Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14), increased the sentence in each case to the next higher cell without written reasons for departure. This was error. The automatic one-cell departure of Rule 3.701(d)(14) only applies to the sentence imposed for the earlier offense for which probation was revoked (dealing in stolen property), not for the subsequent offense (grand theft) which constitutes the probation violation.

Accordingly, we reverse the sentence imposed in Case No. 86-7793, and remand for resentencing within the recommended guidelines range of twelve to thirty months, unless valid reasons for departure are set forth in writing.

SENTENCE REVERSED; REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

Ronald Cummins was placed on three years’ probation in October, 1985, for the offense of dealing in stolen property.¹ In November, 1986, Cummins was arrested for grand theft.² Cummins pled guilty to the grand theft charge and admitted the probation violation. The trial court, relying on Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14), increased the sentence in each case to the next higher cell without written reasons for departure. This was error. The automatic one-cell departure of Rule 3.701(d)(14) only applies to the sentence imposed for the earlier offense for which probation was revoked (dealing in stolen property), not for the subsequent offense (grand theft) which constitutes the probation violation.

Accordingly, we reverse the sentence imposed in Case No. 86-7793, and remand for resentencing within the recommended guidelines range of twelve to thirty months, unless valid reasons for departure are set forth in writing.

SENTENCE REVERSED; REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 So. 2d 718, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 328, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 348, 1988 WL 6425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummins-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack