Pringal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pringal v. State

564 So. 2d 285, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5401, 1990 WL 103144

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 26, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1862

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 564 So. 2d 285 (Pringal 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

Pringal v. State, 564 So. 2d 285, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5401, 1990 WL 103144 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERSON, Judge.

David Pringal appeals his sentence because of an upward departure from the guidelines. We vacate the sentence and remand.

The court imposed sentences of five years in the Department of Corrections for a new charge of possession of cocaine, five years for possession of cocaine after violation of community control, and fifteen years for sale or delivery of cocaine after violation of community control. The recommended sentencing range was 3V2 to 4V2 years with a one-cell bump for community control violation. Rule 3.701(d)(14), Fla.R. Crim.P. The written reasons for departure were that it was Pringal’s third violation of probation or community control and that the new violation of possession of cocaine was committed within six months of his being placed on community control. The new possession charge was the basis for the violations of community control and cannot be used as a ground for departure. Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990); Hamilton v. State, 548 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989); Coney v. State, 560 So.2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Johnson v. State, 557 So.2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); and Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.

Sentence VACATED; REMANDED. DANIEL, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.

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

PETERSON, Judge.

David Pringal appeals his sentence because of an upward departure from the guidelines. We vacate the sentence and remand.

The court imposed sentences of five years in the Department of Corrections for a new charge of possession of cocaine, five years for possession of cocaine after violation of community control, and fifteen years for sale or delivery of cocaine after violation of community control. The recommended sentencing range was 3V2 to 4V2 years with a one-cell bump for community control violation. Rule 3.701(d)(14), Fla.R. Crim.P. The written reasons for departure were that it was Pringal’s third violation of probation or community control and that the new violation of possession of cocaine was committed within six months of his being placed on community control. The new possession charge was the basis for the violations of community control and cannot be used as a ground for departure. Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990); Hamilton v. State, 548 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989); Coney v. State, 560 So.2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Johnson v. State, 557 So.2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); and Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.

Sentence VACATED; REMANDED. DANIEL, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 So. 2d 285, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5401, 1990 WL 103144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pringal-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack