From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maguire v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 27, 1991
586 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-03222.

September 27, 1991.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Charles S. Carrere, Acting Circuit Judge.

Aubrey O. Dicus, Jr. and Margie I. Fraley of Battaglia, Ross, Hastings and Dicus, A Professional Association, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michele Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Appellant, convicted of handling and fondling a child under the age of fourteen, raises two points on appeal, the first of which we find has no merit and the second of which we certify as a question of great public importance.

In 1986, appellant was sentenced to ten years of probation. In July of 1988, appellant's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to fifteen years, suspended to thirty months incarceration with the remaining twelve-and-one-half years to be served on probation. Included in the probation order was a provision forbidding appellant from having unsupervised contact with minors.

In October of 1990, the court sentenced appellant on the basis of a violation of his probation to nine years incarceration plus three years probation, again with the probation condition that appellant not have any unsupervised contact with minors.

Although appellant argues that the condition of probation is unconstitutionally vague and must be stricken, we believe that, under the circumstances of this case, the restriction was not overly vague.

Appellant also argues that the court improperly departed from the guidelines when it sentenced him to nine years incarceration plus three years probation. He maintains that a second violation of probation does not constitute a valid basis for departure beyond the one-cell bump allowed under the guidelines. This court has certified this question to the Supreme Court. See Moten v. State, 579 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

As in Moten, we affirm the judgment and sentence, including the departure, and certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:

DOES A SECOND VIOLATION OF PROBATION CONSTITUTE A VALID BASIS FOR A DEPARTURE SENTENCE BEYOND THE ONE-CELL DEPARTURE PROVIDED IN THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES?

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Maguire v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 27, 1991
586 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Maguire v. State

Case Details

Full title:RUSSELL AMBLER MAGUIRE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Sep 27, 1991

Citations

586 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Maguire v. State

PER CURIAM. We review Maguire v. State, 586 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1991), in which the district court of…

Graham v. State

Another foreseeable difficulty with such a condition is to prevent Graham from being held in violation should…