Pullens v. State, 86-1707
| Decision Date | 25 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1707,86-1707 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2685 Horace PULLENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John T. Kilcrease, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Horace Pullens appeals from his final judgment and sentence for grand theft. He raises two points on appeal, but we find merit only in his contention that the final judgment incorrectly reflects a conviction for robbery rather than grand theft. We reverse in part and remand for correction of the final judgment.
The appellant was charged with robbery, a second degree felony, on March 22, 1984. He pled nolo contendere to the lesser included offense of grand theft, a third degree felony, and was placed on probation for five years. In March 1986 he was found to have violated the terms of his probation, and his probation was modified. Two weeks later he again was found to be in violation and his probation was revoked. He was then placed on community control. Within a month he was charged with violation of community control. He pled guilty to the charge, and the trial court revoked his community control and sentenced him to five years' incarceration, the statutory maximum sentence.
The trial court stated at the hearing that it intended to depart from the guidelines since the appellant had received two chances to rehabilitate himself through noncustodial supervision and had failed to abide by the terms of such supervision. The court's written reason for departure summarized the oral pronouncement by stating simply, "given 2 chances."
In his first point on appeal the appellant argues that the trial court's departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence was not clear and convincing. This argument is without merit.
At the sentencing hearing the trial court stated:
In imposing the sentence the Court does exceed the recommended guidelines and does so because you have refused to allow yourself to be supervised on probation and by community control. The Court having given you two opportunities to do so and you having failed to do so the Court feels that the maximum sentence is warranted....
The court indicated that this was the third time that the appellant had been before the court on either a violation of probation or community control. It is evident that the trial court departed and sentenced the appellant to the maximum sentence based on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State, 87-0562
...1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 879 (Fla.1988); Leath v. State, 487 So.2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Pullens v. State, 516 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Ashley v. State, 510 So.2d 970 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 519 So.2d 986 (Fla.1987). Also cf. Jones v. State, 517 So.2d 121......
-
Williams v. State, 87-02878
...departure. See Adams v. State, 490 So.2d 53 (Fla.1986); Williams v. State, 559 So.2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (en banc); Pullens v. State, 516 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Washington v. State, 510 So.2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Weathers v. State, 508 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); and Simmons ......
-
Richardson v. State, 87-1750
...the guideline recommendation based on Richardson's repeated violations of probation and community control in this case. Pullens v. State, 516 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We do find, however, that the court erred in imposing costs without notice and the opportunity to be heard. Jenkins v. S......
- Yung v. Gulf Coast Nat. Bank, 87-447