Pray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pray v. State

562 So. 2d 773, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3496, 1990 WL 64122

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 17, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1034

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 562 So. 2d 773 (Pray 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

Pray v. State, 562 So. 2d 773, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3496, 1990 WL 64122 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Pray appeals his sentence of 15 years, followed by 15 years on probation, which he received after his probation was revoked in 1989. This was Pray’s second probation violation within a 3-year time span and both violations involved the commission of additional substantive crimes.

The trial judge imposed the sentence in this cause, which exceeded the one-cell bump-up, because Pray committed burglary and theft within 6 days after his release from prison. We are bound by the supreme court’s holdings that a departure beyond the one-cell bump-up is not permitted for any sentence imposed with revocation of probation, however egregious the circumstances or short the time. Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989); Hamilton v. State, 548 So.2d 234 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we quash the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Sentence QUASHED; REMANDED.

GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

W. SHARP, Judge.

Pray appeals his sentence of 15 years, followed by 15 years on probation, which he received after his probation was revoked in 1989. This was Pray’s second probation violation within a 3-year time span and both violations involved the commission of additional substantive crimes.

The trial judge imposed the sentence in this cause, which exceeded the one-cell bump-up, because Pray committed burglary and theft within 6 days after his release from prison. We are bound by the supreme court’s holdings that a departure beyond the one-cell bump-up is not permitted for any sentence imposed with revocation of probation, however egregious the circumstances or short the time. Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989); Hamilton v. State, 548 So.2d 234 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we quash the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Sentence QUASHED; REMANDED.

GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

562 So. 2d 773, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3496, 1990 WL 64122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pray-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack