Harris v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harris v. State

556 So. 2d 768, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 727, 1990 WL 10223

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 1990

DocketNo. 88-03523

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 556 So. 2d 768 (Harris 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

Harris v. State, 556 So. 2d 768, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 727, 1990 WL 10223 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Isaac Harris appeals his resentencing on eight felonies following the revocation of his probation. We reverse only the sentence on the violation of probation.

This is the second time Harris has appealed his sentences. In an earlier opinion, Harris v. State, 531 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), this court reversed and remanded the case because the trial court failed to articulate appropriate grounds for its departure sentences under the sentencing guidelines, in that it erred in orally accepting the reasons submitted by the state without providing departure reasons in written form. Harris now challenges the new sentences imposed on remand.

We affirm all sentences except Harris’s sentence on the violation of probation for which he received ninety-nine years. Although the trial judge listed valid reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines on all the sentences, he did not have the benefit of two recent supreme court decisions limiting the sentence for the underlying violation of probation offense. On the violation of probation sentence, the trial court may not depart beyond the one-cell enhancement permitted by the sentencing guidelines. Ree v. State, No. 71,424 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989) [14 F.L.W. 565]; Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). Because the trial judge imposed a sentence of ninety-nine years on Harris for the violation of probation to run consecutive to four other ninety-nine year terms, we must reverse and remand the sentence on the violation of probation. That sentence in effect constituted a guidelines departure from the recommended sentence of life. See Robinson v. State, 520 So.2d 1 (Fla.1988). Based upon Ree and Lambert, therefore, on remand the trial court should impose a life sentence on the violation of probation offense to run concurrently with the other ninety-nine-year consecutive sentences. Appellant is required to be present at the resentencing. See Quarterman v. State, 506 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved, 527 So.2d 1380 (1988).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing upon the violation of probation sentence. Otherwise affirmed.

FRANK, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

Isaac Harris appeals his resentencing on eight felonies following the revocation of his probation. We reverse only the sentence on the violation of probation.

This is the second time Harris has appealed his sentences. In an earlier opinion, Harris v. State, 531 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), this court reversed and remanded the case because the trial court failed to articulate appropriate grounds for its departure sentences under the sentencing guidelines, in that it erred in orally accepting the reasons submitted by the state without providing departure reasons in written form. Harris now challenges the new sentences imposed on remand.

We affirm all sentences except Harris’s sentence on the violation of probation for which he received ninety-nine years. Although the trial judge listed valid reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines on all the sentences, he did not have the benefit of two recent supreme court decisions limiting the sentence for the underlying violation of probation offense. On the violation of probation sentence, the trial court may not depart beyond the one-cell enhancement permitted by the sentencing guidelines. Ree v. State, No. 71,424 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989) [14 F.L.W. 565]; Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). Because the trial judge imposed a sentence of ninety-nine years on Harris for the violation of probation to run consecutive to four other ninety-nine year terms, we must reverse and remand the sentence on the violation of probation. That sentence in effect constituted a guidelines departure from the recommended sentence of life. See Robinson v. State, 520 So.2d 1 (Fla.1988). Based upon Ree and Lambert, therefore, on remand the trial court should impose a life sentence on the violation of probation offense to run concurrently with the other ninety-nine-year consecutive sentences. Appellant is required to be present at the resentencing. See Quarterman v. State, 506 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved, 527 So.2d 1380 (1988).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing upon the violation of probation sentence. Otherwise affirmed.

FRANK, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 So. 2d 768, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 727, 1990 WL 10223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack