Glasco v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glasco v. State

567 So. 2d 565, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7791, 1990 WL 150209

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 11, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1807

StatusPublished

This text of 567 So. 2d 565 (Glasco 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

Glasco v. State, 567 So. 2d 565, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7791, 1990 WL 150209 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

GOSHORN, Judge.

Christopher Glaseo appeals the sentence imposed following his plea admitting violations of community control. Because the defendant was sentenced without the use of a guideline scoresheet, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Disinger v. State, 526 So.2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also Rule 3.701d.l, Fla.R. Crim.P.

The lack of a scoresheet in the record prevents us from adequately addressing Glasco’s remaining points on appeal, however, on remand, the trial judge must observe the constraints of the sentencing guidelines, including the one cell increase permitted after a violation of probation. Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). See also Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (“[T]wo violations of probation as to the same offense do not justify a departure sentence and ... the one cell increase permitted by the sentencing guidelines for a sentence following a violation of probation is the exclusive applicable sentencing factor relating to the effect of a prior violation, or violations, of probation ...” (footnote omitted)). We also call the trial court’s attention to section 958.14, Florida Statutes [566]*566(1989) which limits the sentence of a youthful offender to no more than 6 years’ imprisonment. State v. Watts, 558 So.2d 994 (Fla.1990). Cf. Amette v. State, 566 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Sentence VACATED; REMANDED.

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

GOSHORN, Judge.

Christopher Glaseo appeals the sentence imposed following his plea admitting violations of community control. Because the defendant was sentenced without the use of a guideline scoresheet, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Disinger v. State, 526 So.2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also Rule 3.701d.l, Fla.R. Crim.P.

The lack of a scoresheet in the record prevents us from adequately addressing Glasco’s remaining points on appeal, however, on remand, the trial judge must observe the constraints of the sentencing guidelines, including the one cell increase permitted after a violation of probation. Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). See also Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (“[T]wo violations of probation as to the same offense do not justify a departure sentence and ... the one cell increase permitted by the sentencing guidelines for a sentence following a violation of probation is the exclusive applicable sentencing factor relating to the effect of a prior violation, or violations, of probation ...” (footnote omitted)). We also call the trial court’s attention to section 958.14, Florida Statutes [566]*566(1989) which limits the sentence of a youthful offender to no more than 6 years’ imprisonment. State v. Watts, 558 So.2d 994 (Fla.1990). Cf. Amette v. State, 566 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Sentence VACATED; REMANDED.

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 So. 2d 565, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7791, 1990 WL 150209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glasco-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack