From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. VanKooten

Supreme Court of Florida
Mar 31, 1988
522 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1988)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In VanKooten, the trial judge imposed a prison sentence of thirty months, followed by two years' community control and ten and one-half years of probation without stating reasons for departure. 512 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), approved, 522 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1988).

Summary of this case from Felty v. State
See 9 Summaries

Opinion

No. 71170.

March 31, 1988.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Putnam County, Robert R. Perry, J.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and James R. Wulchak, Chief, Appellate Div., Asst. Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review VanKooten v. State, 512 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), which held that when the presumptive guideline sentence directs community control or incarceration, the imposition of both represents a departure from the sentencing guidelines, requiring proper written reasons for the departure. In so holding, the court relied on its decision in Hankey v. State, 505 So.2d 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), and certified conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Francis v. State, 487 So.2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and approve VanKooten and Hankey and disapprove the Second District's decision in Francis.

In Francis, the district court recognized that its holding converted "the applicable range to `community control and 12 to 30 months' incarceration,'" explaining that "the use of the word `or' in this cell was not intended to make the alternatives mutually exclusive but rather was designed to permit the imposition of either or both sanctions." 487 So.2d at 349 (emphasis in original). We disagree. The guideline clearly states that the appropriate sentence was community control or incarceration. Any change in that presumptive guideline must occur through appropriate legislative and court rule action, rather than by judicial construction.

Accordingly, we approve the instant case and the Fifth District's decision in Hankey, and disapprove the Second District's decision in Francis.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

State v. VanKooten

Supreme Court of Florida
Mar 31, 1988
522 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1988)

In VanKooten, the trial judge imposed a prison sentence of thirty months, followed by two years' community control and ten and one-half years of probation without stating reasons for departure. 512 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), approved, 522 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1988).

Summary of this case from Felty v. State

In State v. VanKooten, 522 So.2d 830, 830-31 (Fla. 1988), this Court decided "that when the presumptive guideline sentence directs community control or incarceration, the imposition of both represents a departure from the sentencing guidelines, requiring proper written reasons for the departure."

Summary of this case from State v. Davis

In State v. VanKooten, 522 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1988), we found that a combined sentence of community control and incarceration represents a sentencing guidelines departure.

Summary of this case from Trotter v. State

In VanKooten, the supreme court addressed the guidelines only as they relate to imposition of a sentence combining incarceration and community control.

Summary of this case from Blair v. State

In VanKooten, the recommended range was community control or 12 to 30 months' incarceration; there was no permitted range as of the date the crime there was committed.

Summary of this case from Gilyard v. State

In State v. VanKooten, 522 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court held that when the applicable sentencing guidelines bracket directs community control or incarceration, the imposition of both represents a departure from the sentencing guidelines and thus requires proper written reasons for the departure.

Summary of this case from Hearon v. State

In State v. VanKooten, 522 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 1988), the supreme court ruled that, when so provided by the guidelines, either community control or incarceration could be imposed, but not both.

Summary of this case from Davis v. State

In VanKooten v. State, 522 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 1988), the supreme court ruled that when so provided by the guidelines cell, either community control or incarceration may be imposed, but not both. Subsequently, in Ewing v. State, 526 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), this court construed the VanKooten proscription as applicable only where the combined sentences exceeded the maximum period of incarceration permitted under the guidelines, reasoning that a departure sentence does not result where the combined sanctions do not exceed the maximum guidelines incarcerative period.

Summary of this case from Collins v. State

In State v. VanKooten, 522 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1988); State v. Bodine, 522 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1988); Hankey v. State, 505 So.2d 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 515 So.2d 230 (Fla. 1987), (approved by the supreme court in VanKooten); and Belcher v. State, 559 So.2d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), the combined length of the period of incarceration and community control exceeded the maximum period of incarceration which was permitted under sentencing guidelines.

Summary of this case from Oglesby v. State
Case details for

State v. VanKooten

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, v. BRUCE ALAN VanKOOTEN, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Mar 31, 1988

Citations

522 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1988)

Citing Cases

State v. Davis

On appeal the district court held the combination of incarceration and community control to be a departure…

Oglesby v. State

The appellant also contends that a departure sentence was improperly imposed without any written reasons to…

41 Citing Cases