Yukanovitz v. State, 88-2078
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1938,547 So.2d 722 |
| Decision Date | 16 August 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2078,88-2078 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1938 Joseph George YUKANOVITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Jeffrey P. Whitton, Panama City, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Detria J. Liles, Certified Legal Intern, Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
The defendant appeals from his sentence contending that it was an upward departure and contrary to the plea agreement. He pled nolo contendere to the offense of lewd, lascivious or indecent act upon or in the presence of a child. As a part of the plea agreement, the defendant was to receive the "low side of the guidelines," i.e., the defendant would be sentenced to the lower end of the guidelines range of whatever cell the defendant fell within in the Category 2 scoresheet. There was the further express understanding that the trial court would retain the right, after obtaining and reviewing the presentence investigation report, to not adhere to the low end of the guidelines cell in which case the defendant would be entitled to withdraw his nolo plea.
Several weeks later at sentencing, the trial court announced that it could not go along with the lower end of the guidelines cell which turned out to be the one which calls for a recommended range of "community control or 12-30 months incarceration". In accordance with the earlier understanding, the court informed the defendant that he would be permitted to withdraw his nolo plea. The court advised the defendant that if he did not withdraw his plea, he would be sentenced to a year in the county jail, followed by two years on community control, followed by eight years on probation. The defendant then indicated that he was agreeable with the proposed sentence and that he wished to adhere to the nolo plea. Whereupon, the court proceeded to impose the above sentence.
Appellant asserts on appeal that the sentence of both incarceration and community control is a departure from the applicable guidelines cell, i.e., community control or 12-30 months incarceration, and that such a departure without stating reasons therefor is improper. We need not reach the question of whether the subject sentence was a departure sentence. 1 For, even if it was, the sentence imposed was precisely that which was agreed upon. Such sentences generally do not require any other reason for departure from the recommended range. White v. State, 531 So.2d 711 (Fla.1988); Valdes v. State, 528 So.2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Denmark v. State, 519 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), review denied 529 So.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National R.R. Passenger v. Rountree Transport
... ... Thomas E. Warner, Tallahassee, FL, for Amicus Curiae, State of Florida ... Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle ... ...
-
Reynolds v. State
...sentencing guidelines and did not require written reasons. See Smith v. State, 529 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1988); Holland; Yukanovitz v. State, 547 So.2d 722, 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The concurrent 5-year terms of imprisonment for VOP are legal and will not be disturbed. Jones v. State, 387 So.2d ......
-
Hammond v. State, 90-2645
...recommended guideline sentence without any stated reasons for departure. White v. State, 531 So.2d 711 (Fla.1988); Yukanovitz v. State, 547 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Hicks v. State, 559 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Zimmerman v. State, 554 So.2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA In the instant case, e......
-
Hill v. State, 98-2524
...plea agreement. White v. State, 531 So.2d 711 (Fla.1988); Gainer v. State, 590 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Yukanovitz v. State, 547 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The trial court sentenced Appellant to the same terms to which he had agreed in his plea agreement. Therefore, Ground Three ......