O'Malley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O'Malley v. State

462 So. 2d 868, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 267, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12152

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 1985

DocketNo. 84-583

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 462 So. 2d 868 (O'Malley 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

O'Malley v. State, 462 So. 2d 868, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 267, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12152 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon finding appellant guilty of violation of his probation, the parties agreed that the appellant had a guideline score of fifty points, which placed him in the twelve to thirty months sentence range. However, the trial court felt he could elevate the sentence to the next category or grid on a violation of probation and thus sentenced appellant to two years, ten months, and nine days, with credit for time served. Appellant objected to raising the sentence to the next grid because the amendment to the rule (Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14)) was not adopted until May 8, 1984, and the sentencing took place on March 5, 1984.

We hold that appellant’s contention has merit. Recently approved changes in the sentencing guidelines have no retroactive effect. Dorman v. State, 457 So.2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see also Kelly, v. State, 461 So.2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Furthermore, the court’s record explanation of why he was deviating from the guidelines (assuming that he was) is inadequate under the rule to demonstrate clear and convincing reasons therefor. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 (d)(ll).

Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand for further sentencing.

DOWNEY, DELL and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon finding appellant guilty of violation of his probation, the parties agreed that the appellant had a guideline score of fifty points, which placed him in the twelve to thirty months sentence range. However, the trial court felt he could elevate the sentence to the next category or grid on a violation of probation and thus sentenced appellant to two years, ten months, and nine days, with credit for time served. Appellant objected to raising the sentence to the next grid because the amendment to the rule (Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14)) was not adopted until May 8, 1984, and the sentencing took place on March 5, 1984.

We hold that appellant’s contention has merit. Recently approved changes in the sentencing guidelines have no retroactive effect. Dorman v. State, 457 So.2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see also Kelly, v. State, 461 So.2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Furthermore, the court’s record explanation of why he was deviating from the guidelines (assuming that he was) is inadequate under the rule to demonstrate clear and convincing reasons therefor. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 (d)(ll).

Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand for further sentencing.

DOWNEY, DELL and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 So. 2d 868, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 267, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omalley-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack