Summary
In Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1992), the supreme court clarified its prior Williams decision, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1992), and held that in case of multiple violations of probation, sentences may be bumped one cell or guideline range for each violation pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14).
Summary of this case from Davis v. StateOpinion
No. 76016.
February 6, 1992.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance, Second District — Case No. 87-02878 (Hillsborough County).
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Megan Olson, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Stephen A. Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.
We review Williams v. State, 568 So.2d 1276-77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), in which the court certified the following as a 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?
Our jurisdiction is based on article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
Though phrased in a different manner, this question has been answered negatively in our recent opinion in Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1992). We quash the decision below to the extent that it conflicts with that opinion and remand the case for further consideration. In the event the district court of appeal concludes that all of the other reasons given for departure are invalid, Lucious Williams should be resentenced consistent with the dictates of the Williams opinion cited above.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J. and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.