Wigfals v. State, 85-627
| Decision Date | 03 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-627,85-627 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 114,480 So.2d 259 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 114 Samuel H. WIGFALS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Candance M. Sunderland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant Samuel H. Wigfals appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation. We affirm the revocation but vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
On September 8, 1980, the trial court adjudicated defendant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to four years in prison followed by two year's probation. His probation for this offense commenced on February 1, 1983. On August 10, 1984, he was charged with violating the terms of this probation by committing another robbery on June 21, 1984.
At the probation violation hearing defendant admitted that a jury had convicted him of the second robbery early in 1985. The trial judge found he had violated probation as a result of this conviction. The guidelines scoresheet indicated defendant received a total of 50 points for violating probation. The presumptive sentence for this offense was community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration, if the recommended sentence in the next higher cell of the guidelines range were used pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14) and 3.988(c).
The judge adjudicated defendant guilty of violating probation and sentenced him to fifteen year's imprisonment consecutive to any other sentence with credit for time served. He did not provide written reasons for departure from the guidelines. However, he orally stated on the record that the defendant was on probation when he committed the second robbery for which he had received a thirty-five-year sentence. The judge said that since defendant continued to be a threat to the community, he would sentence him to the maximum punishment provided by law.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14) allows a limited departure to the next higher cell on the guidelines range for a violation of probation without requiring a reason for departure. Thus, the maximum sentence defendant could have received within the guidelines was community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration. His fifteen-year sentence clearly exceeds this range. Consequently, we must vacate defendant's sentence because ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myrick v. State, s. 85-292
...enhance appellant's sentence more than the one cell permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14). See Wigfals v. State, 480 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Furthermore, appellant's criminal history included both valid and invalid reasons for departure. For instance, the juveni......
-
Irving v. State, 85-1365
...to the extent of one cell and was not a proper basis for the departure here. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14). See also Wigfals v. State, 480 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). It is true that defendant was charged with violating probation by engaging in several drug sales. However, the trial court co......
-
Stewart v. State, 85-859
...sentence of five years' imprisonment for possession of a short-barreled rifle is a departure requiring written reasons. Wigfals v. State, 480 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The record does not contain written reasons for departure; therefore, appellant's sentence must be reversed and remande......