Teer v. State

557 So. 2d 910, 1990 WL 19948
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 5, 1990
Docket89-1368
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 557 So. 2d 910 (Teer 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
Teer v. State, 557 So. 2d 910, 1990 WL 19948 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

557 So.2d 910 (1990)

Jeffery Anderson TEER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 89-1368.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 5, 1990.

*911 David A. Davis, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Cynthia A. Shaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffery Anderson Teer appeals a departure sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation and adjudication of the offense of burglary of a structure. We reverse and remand for resentencing. As reasons for its departure from the sentencing guidelines recommendation the court noted Teer's repeated, persistent pattern of violating his probation and the occurrence of the violations within a short period of time. The recommended guidelines sentence, with a one cell increase for probation violation was community control or 12-30 months incarcertion.

The court's grounds for departure would appear to be valid under Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1987); however, recent decisions apparently compel a contrary result. In Ree v. State, 14 FLW 565 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989) the supreme court held that any departure sentence for probation violation is impermissible if it exceeds the one cell increase permitted by the sentencing guidelines. In Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) the defendant had also committed two violations as had Teer, but the court concluded that Ree v. State precluded departure on this basis. Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines with only the permissible one cell increase for probation violation.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOOTH, THOMPSON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hardy v. State
586 So. 2d 1070 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Porter v. State
579 So. 2d 345 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Thicklin v. State
578 So. 2d 375 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Ramsey v. State
562 So. 2d 394 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Sanders v. State
560 So. 2d 298 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
557 So. 2d 910, 1990 WL 19948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teer-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.