Nesmith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nesmith v. State

580 So. 2d 898, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6430, 1991 WL 109695

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1012

StatusPublished

This text of 580 So. 2d 898 (Nesmith 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

Nesmith v. State, 580 So. 2d 898, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6430, 1991 WL 109695 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

After repeated violations of probation and community control, Nesmith received a sentence departing from the guidelines. The trial judge wrote he departed from the guidelines “[b]ased on the Defendant’s pri- or criminal record, and his violation of probation and community control....” Since Nesmith’s prior record was scored on the scoresheet, and since a departure sentence for multiple prior violations of probation or community control is limited to the one-cell increase authorized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14), we vacate the departure sentence. See Maxwell v. State, 576 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We remand for resentencing within the guidelines range one-cell increase authorized by Rule 3.701(d)(14).

JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

After repeated violations of probation and community control, Nesmith received a sentence departing from the guidelines. The trial judge wrote he departed from the guidelines “[b]ased on the Defendant’s pri- or criminal record, and his violation of probation and community control....” Since Nesmith’s prior record was scored on the scoresheet, and since a departure sentence for multiple prior violations of probation or community control is limited to the one-cell increase authorized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14), we vacate the departure sentence. See Maxwell v. State, 576 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We remand for resentencing within the guidelines range one-cell increase authorized by Rule 3.701(d)(14).

JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

580 So. 2d 898, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6430, 1991 WL 109695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesmith-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack