Case Name: Mark Anthony NIEHENKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-04-19
Citations: 561 So. 2d 1218
Docket Number: No. 89-749
Parties: Mark Anthony NIEHENKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: PETERSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 561
Pages: 1218–1220

Head Matter:
Mark Anthony NIEHENKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 89-749.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
April 19, 1990.
On Motion for Rehearing/Certification June 14, 1990.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Bonnie J. Parrish, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
HARRIS, Judge.
Mark Anthony Niehenke appeals his sentence following a nolo contendere plea to violation of probation. In May 1985 the defendant was placed on probation for the offense of aggravated battery for a period of ten years with a condition that he serve 2⅛⅛ years in prison. After his release from prison he violated probation and was restored to his term of probation with a condition that he serve 3 ½ years in prison with credit for 949 days previously spent incarcerated.
After his release he again violated probation. His new guideline sentencing range, including the one cell bump, was 2⅛ to &k years. Since he had previously served 3½ years on the original offense and first violation, the sentencing guidelines prevented the judge from imposing any punishment for the new violation. Stating as his written reason for departure that the defendant had already served his guideline sentence on the previous violation, the judge sentenced appellant to 12 years in prison.
While this court understands the frustration of the trial court in attempting to supervise defendants on probation, both courts are bound to follow the law as determined by the Supreme Court. In Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989), the Florida Supreme Court limited the sentencing court, regardless of reason, to the guideline plus one cell for any violation sentence.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.