From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 2, 1990
557 So. 2d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 87-03126.

March 2, 1990.

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

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


We affirm the finding of the trial court that appellant Collie Cox violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The sentence imposed, thirty months in prison followed by community control, represents a departure from the guideline recommendation of twelve to thirty months. State v. Van Kooten, 522 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1988). No written reasons in support of the departure are to be found within the record before us.

Accordingly, we remand this case for resentencing within the guideline range. Since this can be accomplished by deleting the consecutive community control provision, appellant need not be present for this purpose.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 2, 1990
557 So. 2d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Cox v. State

Case Details

Full title:COLLIE A. COX, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Mar 2, 1990

Citations

557 So. 2d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Wilken v. State

Wilken need not be present at the resentencing. See Cox v. State, 557 So.2d 674 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1990)…

Burkett v. State

The resentencing that this court ordered the trial court to conduct could not be accomplished by simply…