Jordan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jordan v. State

692 So. 2d 964, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4143, 1997 WL 194866

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1997

DocketNo. 95-04389

StatusPublished

This text of 692 So. 2d 964 (Jordan 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

Jordan v. State, 692 So. 2d 964, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4143, 1997 WL 194866 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant’s judgment for attempted first degree murder committed on April 20,1985, and the aspect of the sentencing order that revokes his probation. We remand, however, for resentencing, because the trial court departed beyond the one-cell bump for the violation of probation when it imposed forty years in prison in 1995.

Based on the record before us, we are unaware of any other substantive offenses for which the appellant was being sentenced in 1995. The attempted first degree murder occurred before the effective date of the permitted ranges, July 1, 1988. See Watts v. State, 580 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, on remand, the state must prepare a corrected scoresheet reflecting the appropriate recommended range for the point total. We note that somehow the point total on the scoresheet prepared in 1995 is lower than the total on the scoresheet prepared in 1985. The trial court may again impose a one-cell bump for the violation of probation but must resentence the appellant no higher than the recommended range of the next cell.

Judgment and revocation of probation affirmed; sentence reversed and remanded for resentencing.

DANAHY, AC.J., and PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant’s judgment for attempted first degree murder committed on April 20,1985, and the aspect of the sentencing order that revokes his probation. We remand, however, for resentencing, because the trial court departed beyond the one-cell bump for the violation of probation when it imposed forty years in prison in 1995.

Based on the record before us, we are unaware of any other substantive offenses for which the appellant was being sentenced in 1995. The attempted first degree murder occurred before the effective date of the permitted ranges, July 1, 1988. See Watts v. State, 580 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, on remand, the state must prepare a corrected scoresheet reflecting the appropriate recommended range for the point total. We note that somehow the point total on the scoresheet prepared in 1995 is lower than the total on the scoresheet prepared in 1985. The trial court may again impose a one-cell bump for the violation of probation but must resentence the appellant no higher than the recommended range of the next cell.

Judgment and revocation of probation affirmed; sentence reversed and remanded for resentencing.

DANAHY, AC.J., and PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 So. 2d 964, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4143, 1997 WL 194866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack