Montgomery v. State

521 So. 2d 298, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 616, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 859, 1988 WL 18578
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 8, 1988·No. No. 86-1887·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a judgment and sentence beyond the guidelines entered upon a revocation of probation, we find no error in the finding that Montgomery was in violation of his probation. The order revoking probation and resulting conviction are therefore affirmed. The departure sentence, however, is flawed both in the procedure through which it was imposed, Barbera v. State, 505 So.2d 413 (Fla.1987), and by the fact that the grounds eventually assigned are insufficient. Saldana v. State, 510 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Since new grounds may not now be stated for deviation, Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987); Harris v. State, 520 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the cause is remanded for resentencing within the guidelines, as enhanced by the one cell increase authorized for a probation violation by Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

Montgomery v. State, 521 So. 2d 298, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 616, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 859, 1988 WL 18578 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

521 So. 2d 298 (Montgomery v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. State
545 So. 2d 302 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)