Chanquet v. State, 89-338
| Decision Date | 01 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-338,89-338 |
| Citation | 570 So.2d 962 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1199, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2017 Eugene CHANQUET, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Linda G. Katsin, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Roberta G. Mandel, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and GODERICH, JJ.
Affirmed. State v. McGriff, 537 So.2d 107 (Fla.1989); State v. Jones, 530 So.2d 53 (Fla.1988); Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987); State v. Sheperd, 479 So.2d 106 (Fla.1985); § 921.001(5), Fla.Stat. (1987).
The trial court placed Chanquet on community control for committing two burglaries; two months later, the trial court revoked community control and sentenced Chanquet to one year and one day in jail because he committed another substantive crime. Four months after his release, Chanquet committed the crimes for which the trial court imposed three consecutive life sentences. We affirmed. Page 962. In his motion for rehearing, Chanquet argues that the record does not reflect why the trial court had revoked community control: he is correct, although the scoresheet contains a note that Chanquet had previously been convicted of a third degree felony. Marion v. State, 559 So.2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), dictates that to depart from the sentencing guidelines on the basis of a continuing pattern of criminal activity, the trial court must make specific findings as to the timing of each of Chanquet's four felonies, and the violation of community control, as well as the temporal proximity to the release from jail of the commission of the offenses for which he was convicted. Under State v. Jones, 530 So.2d 53 (Fla.1988), mere temporal proximity, without more, is insufficient to sustain a departure sentence. Thus, we must vacate Chanquet's sentences.
Finding that the trial court failed to demonstrate a pattern of continuing behavior justifying departure from the guidelines sentence, we grant rehearing, reverse, and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lipscomb v. State
...So.2d 702 (Fla.1989); Gibson v. State, 553 So.2d 701 (Fla.1989); Marion v. State, 559 So.2d 389 (Fla.3d DCA 1990); Chanquet v. State, 570 So.2d 962, 963 (Fla.3d DCA 1990) (on rehearing). But see, Barfield v. State, 564 So.2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (question certified).8 State v. Jones, 530......
-
Lago v. State
...Butler v. State, 545 So.2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). But see McKinney v. State, 559 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Chanquet v. State, 570 So.2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The recent decision in Smith v. State, 570 So.2d 1315 (Fla.1991), has at a minimum invalidated recent release from incarcerati......
-
Chanquet v. State
...but the departure sentences were vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing within the sentencing guidelines. Chanquet v. State, 570 So.2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), opinion superseded on rehearing, 586 So.2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). On remand defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of......
-
Chanquet v. State, 89-338
...Chanquet committed the crimes for which the trial court imposed three consecutive life sentences. We affirmed. Chanquet v. State, 570 So.2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In his motion for rehearing, Chanquet argues that the record does not reflect why the trial court had revoked community control......