Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Mark Anthony NIEHENKE, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-02-06
Citations: 594 So. 2d 289
Docket Number: No. 76258
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Mark Anthony NIEHENKE, Respondent.
Judges: SHAW, C.J. and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 594
Pages: 289–289

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Mark Anthony NIEHENKE, Respondent.
No. 76258.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 6, 1992.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for petitioner.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and James R. Wulchak, Asst. Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We review Niehenke v. State, 561 So.2d 1218, 1219-20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), in which the court certified the following question as being of great public importance:
WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF FRANKLIN V. STATE, 545 SO.2D 851 (FLA.1989), AND LAMBERT V. STATE, 545 SO.2D 838 (FLA.1989), A TRIAL COURT IS LIMITED TO THE ONE-CELL BUMP IN SENTENCING A MULTIPLE PROBATION VIOLATOR WHO HAS ALREADY SERVED ALL OF THE TIME PERMITTED UNDER THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, INCLUDING THE ONE-CELL BUMP?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In our opinion in Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992), we held that in the case of multiple violations of probation, sentences may be bumped one cell or guideline range for each violation. Therefore, as phrased, we answer the certified question in the negative. We quash the decision below to the extent that it conflicts with Williams and remand the case for disposition according to the rationale of that opinion.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J. and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.