Home/Supreme Court of Florida/Dewberry v. State

Dewberry v. State

546 So. 2d 409, 1989 WL 83141
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 20, 1989
Docket73701
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 546 So. 2d 409 (Dewberry 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
Dewberry v. State, 546 So. 2d 409, 1989 WL 83141 (Fla. 1989).

Opinion

546 So.2d 409 (1989)

William DEWBERRY, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 73701.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 20, 1989.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Deputy Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Dewberry v. State, 537 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), which conflicts with Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla. 1989). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash the decision of the district court.

Dewberry was adjudicated guilty of possession of cocaine and placed on five years' probation. Following his arrest (without conviction) for sexual battery, the court revoked his probation and, departing from the guidelines range of twelve to thirty months, sentenced him to five years' imprisonment for the original offense based on his probation violation. The district court affirmed, but certified the following question:

WHERE A TRIAL JUDGE FINDS THAT THE UNDERLYING REASONS FOR VIOLATION OF COMMUNITY CONTROL OR 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 COMMUNITY CONTROL OR PROBATION?

We have answered this question in the negative in Lambert. The one-cell bump-up provided for in the guidelines is the only allowable increase. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14).

Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court and 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

Related

Gainer v. State
671 So. 2d 240 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
King v. State
648 So. 2d 183 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Lipscomb v. State
573 So. 2d 429 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Ramsey v. State
562 So. 2d 394 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Coney v. State
560 So. 2d 429 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Sanders v. State
560 So. 2d 298 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Ellis v. State
559 So. 2d 292 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Collins v. State
556 So. 2d 806 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Jackson v. State
556 So. 2d 813 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Snelling v. State
554 So. 2d 673 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Barton v. State
553 So. 2d 799 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Banks v. State
553 So. 2d 759 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Scott v. State
553 So. 2d 371 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Lane v. State
550 So. 2d 1195 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Williams v. State
551 So. 2d 603 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Phillips v. State
550 So. 2d 1189 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Burg v. State
550 So. 2d 1192 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Kramer v. State
550 So. 2d 557 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
546 So. 2d 409, 1989 WL 83141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dewberry-v-state-fla-1989.