Case Name: Jeffrey WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-01-25
Citations: 558 So. 2d 1038
Docket Number: Nos. 88-2496, 88-2498, 88-2500 and 88-2501
Parties: Jeffrey WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 558
Pages: 1038–1039

Head Matter:
Jeffrey WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 88-2496, 88-2498, 88-2500 and 88-2501.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 25, 1990.
Rehearing Denied April 6, 1990.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David S. Morgan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
This case is very similar to the recent case of Maddox v. State, 553 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), in that various reasons given for imposing a departure sentence following a violation of community control and probation all, directly or indirectly, are related to the violation of probation, i.e., (1) the defendant, while on probation and .community control, committed offenses; (2) some of the violations of probation and community control were second violations; (3) the timing of the commission of the subsequent offenses which constituted the violation of probation and community control and (4) the failure of past rehabilitation and improbability of future rehabilitation as shown by the fact that the probation and community control which the defendant violated were rehabilitative opportunities which were unsuccessful.
Accordingly, based on Maddox and cases and reasons therein, the departure sentences in this case are vacated and the cause is remanded with directions to impose a sentence consistent with the recommended guidelines sentence which itself factors in a one-cell increase for probation violations (Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701, subd. d.14.). See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987).
SENTENCES VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.
HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.