Browning v. State, 84-967

Citation10 Fla. L. Weekly 778,465 So.2d 1357
Decision Date21 March 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-967,84-967
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 778 William B. BROWNING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Christopher S. Quarles, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

William Browning appeals from a judgment and sentence for burglary. Browning contends that the trial court committed reversible error in departing from his presumptive sentence under the guidelines 1 without giving a written reason for departure. We agree.

On September 19, 1983, Browning was charged with a burglary which had occurred on July 23, 1983. He entered a plea of guilty to the charge and, on January 20, 1984, was placed on probation for one year.

On April 20, 1984, an affidavit was filed alleging that Browning had violated his probation by committing another burglary and petit theft and by failing to remain confined to his residence as required by the order of probation. At the hearing held on June 20, 1984, the court found that Browning had violated his probation. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced under the guidelines. Browning's recommended sentence was any non-state prison sanction. He was instead sentenced as a youthful offender to five years in the custody of the Department of Corrections. Defense counsel objected to this sentence and argued that at the most, the court could sentence Browning to twelve to thirty months incarceration (the next highest cell) as a youthful offender based on the violation of probation. The court then set aside the youthful offender sentence and sentenced Browning to thirty months incarceration in an adult institution.

This court has repeatedly held that as to a sentence imposed before July 1, 1984, 2 in the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion and when articulated in writing as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701, a violation of probation may serve as a clear and convincing reason for a departure from the guideline sentence. Kimble v. State, 458 So.2d 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Gordon v. State, 454 So.2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Carter v. State, 452 So.2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Here, Browning violated his probation, but the violation was not given as a reason for departure on either the scoresheet or at the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction, but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

The state's arguments to the effect that remand is unnecessary lack merit. First, the state argues that resentencing would be a futile act because the amendment to rule 3.701 allowing for a one cell upward departure based on a violation of probation without the need for a written reason would apply on remand. In Saunders v. State, 459 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCa 1984), the First District rejected this argument, stating that the defendant is entitled to be resentenced under the guidelines in effect at the time the sentence being reviewed was imposed.

The state also contends that the reason for the departure from the guideline sentence was clearly the violation of probation. Rule 3.701(d)(11) provides that any sentence outside the guidelines must be accompanied by a statement delineating the reasons for departure. This court has held that an oral explanation in the record by the trial court of the reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines is sufficient to meet the requirements of rule 3.701(d)(11). Bell v. State, 459 So.2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Burke v. State, 456 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Hackney v. State, 456 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). And, in Neely v. State, 453 So.2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), this court held that violation of probation was a sufficient reason to exceed the presumptive sentencing guideline range where the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Isgette v. State, 85-1899
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 1 October 1986
    ...case and that a violation of probation is a clear and convincing reason for departure from a guideline sentence. Browning v. State, 465 So.2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Amended rule 3.701 d.14, which took effect July 1, 1984, provides that a trial judge, in imposing a sentence following revo......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT