Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kurt GLOVER, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-03-25
Citations: 634 So. 2d 247
Docket Number: No. 93-936
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kurt GLOVER, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 634
Pages: 247–249

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kurt GLOVER, Appellee.
No. 93-936.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 25, 1994.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Sean K. Ahmed, Asst. Public Defender, Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
GOSHORN, Judge.
Kurt Glover was originally charged with three counts of capital sexual battery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Glover was placed on community control and probation for two counts of attempted sexual battery. An affidavit was subsequently filed alleging defendant had violated the terms of his community control.
The court held a hearing on the violation and, after accepting testimony from various witnesses and argument from counsel, the trial judge found Glover guilty of the violation. The State requested that Glover be incarcerated. Glover requested that his orig inal sentence be reimposed. The trial judge stated the following:
Reinstatement is out of order. I'm going to revoke the prior order of community control and probation. I'm going to place him on a new term of two years community control followed by ten years supervised probation....
The State objected without offering any reason why the court should not abide by its original plea agreement with Glover. Instead, it argued that the new term of community control and probation would be a downward departure from the recommended guidelines sentence of 7 to 9 years with a permitted range of 5½ to 17 years. The court gave no oral or written reasons for departure; however, the imposition of community control and probation were in accord with Glover's original plea agreement.
The State urges that this case is controlled by our decision in State v. McCall, 573 So.2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). We disagree. While both McCall and Glover were initially placed on community control pursuant to a downward departure plea negotiated with the State, McCall subsequently pled guilty to the violation of his community control with the understanding he would receive a guideline sentence. Glover, however, did not plead, but was found guilty by the court. No agreement with the State to be sentenced under the guidelines was involved. We find the distinction significant.
We find that procedurally, the facts of the instant case are identical to those in State v. Hogan, 611 So.2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In Hogan, the defendant initially received a downward departure sentence negotiated and agreed to by the state. Hogan violated his probation, and when it was revoked, he was placed on a new and extended probation which was again a downward departure. The trial court's judgment did not set forth any written reasons supporting the downward departure from the guidelines. In affirming the trial court, the Fourth District stated:
This court has held that the .state's prior stipulation to a downward departure is a valid ground supporting a subsequent sentence below the guidelines. State v. Devine, 512 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 519 So.2d 988 (Fla.1987). Additionally, section 948.06(1), Fla.Stat. (1991) authorizes a trial court, in sentencing following a violation of probation, to impose "any sentence which it might originally have imposed before placing the probationer on probation...."
Id. at 79. We concur. Of course, the trial judge could have sentenced Glover under the guidelines if he believed the facts surrounding the violation so justified. We believe Hogan is sound public policy because it gives trial judges greater flexibility when dealing with the many variables involved in violation hearings.
However, in light of the constraints of section 948.01(4), Florida Statutes (1993), we must remand with instructions to allow Glover credit for time previously served on community control for these offenses. See State v. Ogden, 605 So.2d 155, 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Sentence REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
HARRIS, C.J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.