Case Name: William F. WHITLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-11-15
Citations: 458 So. 2d 888
Docket Number: No. 84-264
Parties: William F. WHITLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and CO-WART, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 458
Pages: 888–890

Head Matter:
William F. WHITLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 84-264.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 15, 1984.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lucinda H. Young, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kenneth McLaughlin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Whitlock appeals from his sentence on the grounds that there are no clear and convincing reasons for the trial court's departure, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll), and that the trial court's departure from the recommended sentence was excessive. We affirm.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of criminal mischief with damages over $11,-000.00. On March 30, 1979, he was placed on probation for five years for that offense.
His probation was revoked on November 16, 1979 for the first time because of arrests on forgery charges committed in Putnam County. The judge revoked Whit-lock's probation and then reinstated it, adding a condition that he serve six months in the county jail.
While still on probation for the first crime, his probation was revoked a second time on October 21, 1982 because he failed to keep appointments with his probation officer and he was arrested for petit theft. His probation was modified and he was sent to the Probation and Restitution Center and ordered to engage in an educational program. However, on January 6, 1984, Whitlock admitted violating his probation a third time by absconding from the Probation and Restitution Center. The trial judge also found Whitlock failed to pay for his room and board as required by the Center's rules.
Under the Guidelines, Whitlock's presumptive sentence was any non-state prison sanction. However, the trial judge departed from that sentence and imposed a. five year prison term. This was an upward departure of four cells beyond the pre sumptive sentence. The trial judge stated in writing his reasons for departing:
Defendant has had the benefit of probation several times, Probation and Restitution Center twice, and the State Prison once. He will not comply with the conditions of probation and the Court has exhausted the available county jail time.
We think the trial court was justified in departing upwards from the presumptive guideline sentence because Whitlock repeatedly violated the conditions of his probation. Gordon v. State, 454 So.2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Neely v. State, 453 So.2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Carter v. State, 452 So.2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Once there exists clear and convincing reasons to depart from the guidelines, we do not think the appellate courts have jurisdiction to review the extent of the departure, so long as the length of the sentence is one permissible under the criminal statutes. Since Whitlock's crime for which he was convicted carries a maximum sentence of five years, we must affirm. Further, Whitlock does not argue he has not been given sufficient credit for time served in prison.
Accordingly, his sentence is
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and CO-WART, JJ., concur.
SHARP, J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.
. § 806.13, Fla.Stat. (1983).
. § 812.014, Fla.Stat. (1983).
. The total point range required for such sentences is from 107 to 120. Whitlock's points totaled 34.
. Albritton v. State, 458 So.2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).