Tubman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tubman v. State

815 So. 2d 784, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6533, 2002 WL 971336

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-5149

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 815 So. 2d 784 (Tubman 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

Tubman v. State, 815 So. 2d 784, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6533, 2002 WL 971336 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was sentenced pursuant to the 1995 guidelines following revocation of probation, and has now challenged that sentence pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), a claim for which the appellant has standing. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000). The trial court summarily denied the appellant’s claim on the basis that the appellant’s sentence does not constitute an upward departure from the 1994 guidelines when the one-cell bump up allowed for the appellant’s probation violation is taken into consideration. However, the trial court failed to attach a copy of the appellant’s 1994 sentencing guidelines scoresheet. We therefore reverse and remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to either attach record excerpts that conclusively demonstrate that the appellant is not entitled to any relief, or to grant the relief that is sought.

Reversed and Remanded with instructions.

ERVIN, WOLF and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was sentenced pursuant to the 1995 guidelines following revocation of probation, and has now challenged that sentence pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), a claim for which the appellant has standing. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000). The trial court summarily denied the appellant’s claim on the basis that the appellant’s sentence does not constitute an upward departure from the 1994 guidelines when the one-cell bump up allowed for the appellant’s probation violation is taken into consideration. However, the trial court failed to attach a copy of the appellant’s 1994 sentencing guidelines scoresheet. We therefore reverse and remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to either attach record excerpts that conclusively demonstrate that the appellant is not entitled to any relief, or to grant the relief that is sought.

Reversed and Remanded with instructions.

ERVIN, WOLF and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

815 So. 2d 784, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6533, 2002 WL 971336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tubman-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack