Morviani v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morviani v. State

613 So. 2d 614, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2243, 1993 WL 48249

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 24, 1993·No. No. 92-00318·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joey Morviani appeals a sentence imposed after multiple violations of probation. We affirm the sentence on the basis of Manuel v. State, 582 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In Manuel we held that “bumping” a guideline sentence one cell for violation of probation, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14), necessarily raises the “permitted range” by one cell also. Contrary to the position taken by Morviani in this appeal, we do not believe that Manuel is inconsistent with Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992).

Affirmed.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

Joey Morviani appeals a sentence imposed after multiple violations of probation. We affirm the sentence on the basis of Manuel v. State, 582 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In Manuel we held that “bumping” a guideline sentence one cell for violation of probation, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14), necessarily raises the “permitted range” by one cell also. Contrary to the position taken by Morviani in this appeal, we do not believe that Manuel is inconsistent with Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992).

Affirmed.

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

Morviani v. State, 613 So. 2d 614, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2243, 1993 WL 48249 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

613 So. 2d 614 (Morviani v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related