Montgomery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Montgomery v. State

521 So. 2d 298, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 616, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 859, 1988 WL 18578

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 1988

DocketNo. 86-1887

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 521 So. 2d 298 (Montgomery 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 So. 2d 298, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 616, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 859, 1988 WL 18578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack