MODDIE WELLS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the imposed sentence exceeded the permitted sentencing guidelines range, even with a two-cell bump up.
Appellant was sentenced to five years in prison, exceeding the permitted guidelines range. The sentencing guidelines score-sheet reflected a recommend…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, Judge.
Appellant raises three issues on appeal. We affirm the trial court on the first two issues without comment. Appellant alleges as his third issue error by the trial court in sentencing him to a term in excess of that permitted by the sentencing guidelines. The state concedes error. We agree, and remand for resentencing.
Appellant’s sentencing guidelines score-sheet (case number 92-1443) reflected a recommended sentence of “ANSPS” (any nonstate prison sanction), and a permitted sentence of “up to 22 months incarceration.” Appellant had on two separate occasions violated probation or community control, thus authorizing a two-cell bump up without the necessity of written reasons of justification. See Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992); Mullins v. State, 622 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Thomas v. State, 622 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
With the two-cell bump up, appellant could have been sentenced within the permitted range of community control or one to four and one-half years’ incarceration. Thus, the sentence imposed by the court of five years in prison exceeded the permitted guidelines range.
Because appellant’s sentence was outside the range of even a two-cell bump up, we remand with directions that his sentence be limited to four and one-half years, which is the maximum permitted under the guidelines. See Williams.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dwaynes Marrs v. State, 770 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Appellant has demonstrated no such abuse in this case. There was no error in the three cell bump up on the scoresheet prepared for sentencing, one for each of the three probation/community control violations. See Wells v. State, 668 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Appellant argues that if a trial court does not add a cell directly after finding a probation violation, the trial court forfeits the ability to add that cell after a subsequent violation. This argument is contrary to case…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- Mullins v. State, 622 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Huie Charles Thomas v. State, 622 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)