Kimble v. State

458 So. 2d 86, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2291, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15688
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 1, 1984
DocketNos. 83-1614, 83-1643
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 458 So. 2d 86 (Kimble 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
Kimble v. State, 458 So. 2d 86, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2291, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15688 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In 1980 appellant pled guilty to burglary and was placed on probation. On October 18, 1983, appellant was found guilty of violating his probation. Although his original offense was committed before the effective date (October 1, 1983) of the sentencing guidelines,1 appellant was sentenced after that date, and elected to be sentenced under the guidelines. The trial court ruled that the sentencing guidelines did not apply to this case because the violation of probation occurred prior to the date sentencing guidelines were effective and did not impose the recommended guideline sentence and did not state in writing reasons for imposing a departure sentence. Because of appellant’s election the guidelines were applicable. See Carroll v. State, 454 So.2d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Rutlin v. State, 455 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Mack v. State, 458 So.2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

We have recently held that as to sentence imposed before July 1, 1984,2 in the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion and when articulated in writing as required by the rules, a violation of probation may serve as a clear and convincing reason for a departure from a guideline sentence. Carter v. State, 452 So.2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Neely v. State, 453 So.2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Bodine v. State, 452 So.2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Gordon v. State, 454 So.2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Maged v. State, No. 83-1705 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 20, 1984) [9 FLW 2010]; See also Addison v. State, 452 So.2d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), section 921.-005, Florida Statutes (1983), and the special concurring opinion in Manning v. State, 452 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

We affirm the appealed convictions but vacate the sentence in circuit court case number 79-2719 and remand for sentencing to the presumptive or recommended guideline sentence or to a departure sentence imposed in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED.

SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only.

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

Related

Browning v. State
465 So. 2d 1357 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Rodriguez v. State
464 So. 2d 638 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
458 So. 2d 86, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2291, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimble-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.