Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Roa
Citations: 599 So. 2d 995; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 342; 1992 Fla. LEXIS 985; 1992 WL 117275Docket: No. 77612
Court: Supreme Court of Florida; June 4, 1992; Florida; State Supreme Court
Roa v. State, 574 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) was reviewed due to its conflict with Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1992), under jurisdiction granted by article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. The previous court held that two prior probation violations justified an upward departure from sentencing guidelines for a third violation, whereas Roa, with only one prior violation, could only receive a one-cell bump above the recommended guidelines. In contrast, Williams established that multiple probation violations do not permit a departure sentence but allow for a bump in sentencing for each violation. Thus, Roa could have been eligible for a two-cell bump due to his two prior violations. However, following the district court's mandate, Roa was sentenced within the guidelines, negating the need for resentencing, as the trial court was not required to adjust his sentence. The opinion below is approved, except where it conflicts with Williams and this opinion. The justices concur.