Tucker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tucker v. State

601 So. 2d 1249, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7548, 1992 WL 143621

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 1992

DocketNo. 91-02801

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 601 So. 2d 1249 (Tucker 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

Tucker v. State, 601 So. 2d 1249, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7548, 1992 WL 143621 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the order revoking his probation and the judgment and sentence entered on the offense for which he was placed on probation, battery on a law enforcement officer. Upon revocation of probation, appellant received a five-year prison sentence, the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony. The recommended range of the next higher cell was three and one-half to four and one-half years, and the permitted range was two and one-half years to five and one-half years. Because the battery was committed on December 7, 1987, before the effective date of the amendment to the guidelines establishing permitted ranges, permitted ranges do not apply to this sentence. See Watts v. State, 580 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and order revoking probation, but reverse the sentence and remand for sentencing within the recommended range of the guidelines.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the order revoking his probation and the judgment and sentence entered on the offense for which he was placed on probation, battery on a law enforcement officer. Upon revocation of probation, appellant received a five-year prison sentence, the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony. The recommended range of the next higher cell was three and one-half to four and one-half years, and the permitted range was two and one-half years to five and one-half years. Because the battery was committed on December 7, 1987, before the effective date of the amendment to the guidelines establishing permitted ranges, permitted ranges do not apply to this sentence. See Watts v. State, 580 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and order revoking probation, but reverse the sentence and remand for sentencing within the recommended range of the guidelines.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 So. 2d 1249, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7548, 1992 WL 143621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack