Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

483 So. 2d 749

483 So.2d 749

11 Fla.L.Weekly 266

Lewis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 24, 1986

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-01-24

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1986

3 state decisions

Relies on 475 So. 2d 1218 - Hendrix v. State · 475 So. 2d 1356 - Boldes v. State · 478 So. 2d 480 - Ross v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-01-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SCHOONOVER, Judge.

¶1Appellant, Jerry Lewis, seeks review of a judgment and sentence entered against him. We remand for resentencing.

¶2While on parole for an earlier offense, appellant was charged on February 14, 1985, with robbery. He pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced under the guidelines. The point total on appellant’s score-sheet placed him in the recommended range of seven-to-nine-years imprisonment.

¶3At sentencing, the trial judge enhanced appellant’s sentence by one cell and stated that he could do so without going outside the guidelines. He indicated on the score-sheet his reason for enhancement: “raised one category because of legal restraint (parole).” Appellant was sentenced to ten years in state prison, and this appeal timely followed.

¶4Appellant correctly contends that the court erred in increasing appellant’s sentence, based upon his parole status, to the next higher cell. A defendant’s sentence may be increased to the next higher cell without reason for departure only where his probation or community control has been revoked. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 d.14; see Boldes v. State, 475 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 5th DCS 1985). The rule does not include a similar provision for defendants who violate conditions of parole.

¶5Seventeen points, furthermore, were added to the appellant’s scoresheet due to the fact that he was under legal constraint, i.e., on parole, at the time he committed the robbery. Because appellant’s legal status at the time of the offense had already been taken into account on his sentencing scoresheet, it cannot be considered as a valid justification for departure from the guideline-recommended sentence. See Ross v. State, 478 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also, Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985).

¶6We, accordingly, reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.

¶7Reversed and remanded.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
/483/so2d/749 · .json · Public domain