Case Name: Howard Coval NICHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-02-04
Citations: 504 So. 2d 414
Docket Number: No. BL-426
Parties: Howard Coval NICHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 504
Pages: 414–416

Head Matter:
Howard Coval NICHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. BL-426.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 4, 1987.
On Motion for Rehearing and En Banc March 20, 1987.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and Ann Cocheu, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Maria Ines Súber, and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. At-tys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court's departure from the recommended guideline sentence. Although the recommended range for the offense was twelve to thirty months, because the case involved revocation of probation, the trial court could have increased the sentence to the next higher cell, or from thirty months to three and one-half years, without stating a valid reason for departure. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14). The departed sentences involved seven consecutive five-year terms, or a total of thirty-five years. We find the departure invalid, and reverse and remand.
None of the reasons stated is a valid ground for departure. The first two reasons, appellant's history of criminal activity and his escalating pattern of criminal conduct, take into account appellant's past criminal history and violate Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985). The third reason, protection of the community, is not a clear and convincing reason, because "[a] trial judge may not substitute his own opinion for that of the Sentencing Guideline Commission simply because he does not agree with the presumptive sentence." Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla.1986). The final reason, deterrence, is also invalid. Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25, 29 (Fla.1986).
The case is reversed and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the sentence imposed must be within the recommended range provided by the guidelines, or may be increased to the next higher cell. Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 1986).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.