Neely v. State

453 So. 2d 129
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 12, 1984
Docket83-1565
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 453 So. 2d 129 (Neely 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
Neely v. State, 453 So. 2d 129 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

453 So.2d 129 (1984)

Jackson Leroy NEELY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 83-1565.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 12, 1984.
Rehearing Denied July 26, 1984.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lucinda H. Young, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

*130 Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Evelyn D. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

SHARP, Judge.

On October 17, 1983, the trial court revoked Neely's probation and sentenced him under the new sentencing guidelines, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701, for carrying a concealed weapon in violation of section 790.01, Florida Statutes (1983). Neely was placed on probation on January 26, 1979, for five years, and on May 24, 1983, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed against him. He pleaded guilty to violating probation and the trial court sentenced him to four years in state prison. This sentence exceeded the presumptive guideline sentence.[1]

The trial judge stated on the appealed sentence that he was exceeding the presumptive sentence because following the guidelines "would result in almost no sentence. The defendant's original probation order was for almost the presumptive sentence." Also, expressly stated on the score sheet appears the following reason for departure:

While serving a Five Year Probation for Carrying a Concealed Firearm Offender accumulated Six Misdemeanor Convictions and one Felony Conv. [sic] for Concealing a Fugitive all occurring in State of Illinois and subsequently to being placed on Orange Cty Probation in Case CR78-815 on 01/26/79.

As stated in Carter v. State, 452 So.2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), we think violation of probation may be a sufficient reason to exceed the presumptive guidelines range if rules 3.701(b)(6) and 3.701(d)(11) are complied with. The reasons given here are tantamount to such a statement, and therefore we affirm the sentence in this case.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concur.

NOTES

[1] The presumptive sentence for Neely was any non-state prison sanction. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.988(h). The four year term exceeded the next presumptive sentence range as well.

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)
Bell v. State
459 So. 2d 478 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Hayes v. State
459 So. 2d 456 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Whitlock v. State
458 So. 2d 888 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Boyce v. State
458 So. 2d 96 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Kimble v. State
458 So. 2d 86 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Mack v. State
458 So. 2d 347 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Mischler v. State
458 So. 2d 37 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Garcia v. State
454 So. 2d 714 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 So. 2d 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neely-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.