Williams v. State, No. 94-00570
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | QUINCE; RYDER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND |
| Citation | 653 So.2d 407 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D621 Christopher WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 94-00570 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1995 |
Page 407
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Second District.
Rehearing Denied April 28, 1995.
Page 408
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
QUINCE, Judge.
Appellant, Christopher Williams, appeals the trial court's sentence of two years' community control followed by two years' probation imposed for manufacture of cannabis. He also challenges some of the conditions of probation contained in the written sentencing order. Because the trial court did not give a written reason for the departure sentence, we remand for resentencing. The trial court must also strike special conditions of probation not orally pronounced at sentencing.
Appellant was charged by information with manufacture of cannabis, possession of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. The state dropped the possession of cannabis count, and pursuant to negotiations, appellant pled nolo contendere to the other two counts. In the plea agreement and at sentencing, appellant agreed to two years' community control acknowledging this was a departure from the guidelines. The recommended sentence, under the recommended range and the permitted range of the sentencing guidelines, is any nonstate prison sanction. Appellant was sentenced to two years' community control followed by two years' probation on the manufacturing offense and one year probation on the possession count to run concurrent with the community control.
Appellant argues the two years' community control portion of his sentence should be reversed because it exceeds the maximum which can be imposed when the guidelines range is any nonstate prison sanction. We held in Thompson v. State, 617 So.2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), that a trial court is limited to twenty-two months' community control when the guidelines range is any nonstate prison sanction. See also Sec. 948.01(4), Fla.Stat. (1991). However, Thompson did not involve a situation where the defendant had negotiated for a particular sentence.
A plea bargain between the state and the defendant is a valid reason to depart from the guidelines. Quarterman v. State, 527 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1988); State v. Esbenshade, 493 So.2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). However, even under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Justice v. State, 86264
...597 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Rowland v. State, 548 So.2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Second District: see, e.g., Williams v. State, 653 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), quashed, 667 So.2d 191 (Fla.1996); Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Peterson v. State, 645 So.2d 84 (Fla. ......
-
State v. Williams, 85784
...Public Defender and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. We have for review Williams v. State, 653 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), which expressly and directly conflicts with our opinion in Smith v. State, 529 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1988). We have jurisdicti......
-
Flor v. State, 94-00868
...649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); and condition (5), which prohibits the appellant from using intoxicants to excess, Williams v. State, 653 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and from visiting places where unlawful drugs are used. Alvarez v. State, 593 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Condition (18......
-
Callaway v. State, 94-00259
...shall not use intoxicants to excess is a special condition of probation which must be orally pronounced at sentencing. Williams v. State, 653 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Since it was not, it must be stricken. However, we affirm the remaining portion of that condition prohibiting appellant......
-
Justice v. State, 86264
...597 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Rowland v. State, 548 So.2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Second District: see, e.g., Williams v. State, 653 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), quashed, 667 So.2d 191 (Fla.1996); Nank v. State, 646 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Peterson v. State, 645 So.2d 84 (Fla. ......
-
State v. Williams, 85784
...Public Defender and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. We have for review Williams v. State, 653 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), which expressly and directly conflicts with our opinion in Smith v. State, 529 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1988). We have jurisdicti......
-
Flor v. State, 94-00868
...649 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); and condition (5), which prohibits the appellant from using intoxicants to excess, Williams v. State, 653 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and from visiting places where unlawful drugs are used. Alvarez v. State, 593 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Condition (18......
-
Callaway v. State, 94-00259
...shall not use intoxicants to excess is a special condition of probation which must be orally pronounced at sentencing. Williams v. State, 653 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Since it was not, it must be stricken. However, we affirm the remaining portion of that condition prohibiting appellant......