Hamilton v. State
| Decision Date | 31 August 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 73398,73398 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 581,548 So.2d 234 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 581 Aaron HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Laura Griffin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.
We have for review Hamilton v. State, 533 So.2d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), which conflicts with Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash the decision of the district court.
Hamilton was convicted of committing several drug offenses and was placed on community control. Following his arrest for barn-burning, the court revoked his community control and, departing from the guidelines range of two-and-one-half to three-and-one-half years, sentenced him to concurrent fifteen-year terms of imprisonment for the drug offenses based upon the barn-burnings. He was later acquitted of the arsons.
In Lambert we held that factors related to violation of probation or community control cannot support departure. The one-cell bump-up provided for in the guidelines is the only allowable increase. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(4). We quash the district court's decision and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lipscomb v. State, 89-213
...Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989). A 6-1 majority approved it in Dewberry v. State, 546 So.2d 409 (Fla.1989). In Hamilton v. State, 548 So.2d 234 (Fla.1989) a 5-2 majority again held that factors relating to violations of probation cannot support Even so, it appears that it might ......
-
King v. State, 93-1261
...Dewberry v. State, 546 So.2d 409 (Fla.1989). A 6-1 majority approved it in Dewberry v. State, 546 So.2d 409 (Fla.1989). In Hamilton v. State, 548 So.2d 234 (Fla.1989) a 5-2 majority again held that factors relating to violations of probation cannot support departure.Lipscomb v. State, 573 S......
-
Ramsey v. State, 89-948
...sentence and the one cell increase for violation of probation. Ree v. State, 14 F.L.W. 565 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989); Hamilton v. State, 548 So.2d 234 (Fla.1989); Dewberry v. State, 546 So.2d 409 (Fla.1989); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989); Watson v. State, 558 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 5th DC......
-
Smith v. State, 89-324
...was sentenced. Further consideration would amount to "double-dipping." Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla.1989); Hamilton v. State, 548 So.2d 234 (Fla.1989). However, a consideration of all of Smith's offenses for which he has been convicted, and a consideration of the "temporal prox......