From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 26, 1986
486 So. 2d 632 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Opinion

No. 85-654.

March 26, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Harry Lee Coe III, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and L.S. Alperstein, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kim W. Munch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Defendant appeals the revocation of his probation and asks that his sentence be clarified to reflect that it was not a sentence under the sentencing guidelines.

We affirm the revocation of probation. Contrary to defendant's argument, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence on the basis of which to revoke defendant's probation. See Bernhardt v. State, 288 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1974).

We see no need to remand for clarification that the sentence was not a guidelines sentence. Although the trial judge at sentencing did refer to the presumptive guidelines sentence, the offense was committed prior to the adoption of the sentencing guidelines, defendant did not select guidelines sentencing, and no guidelines scoresheet is in the record.

Affirmed.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Johnson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 26, 1986
486 So. 2d 632 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
Case details for

Johnson v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Mar 26, 1986

Citations

486 So. 2d 632 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Weeks v. State

Further, we see no need to remand for clarification that this is not a guidelines sentence. See Johnson v.…

Diaz v. State

Although a sentencing guidelines scoresheet and a written memorandum setting forth reasons for departure…