Sinks v. State, 661 So. 2d 303

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Sinks v. State, 646 So.2d 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), in which the district court addressed the same question we recently answered in Gilyard v. State, 653 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

In accordance with our decision in Gilyard, we approve Sinks’ sentence to the extent that it combines incarceration and community control because neither the recommended range nor the permitted range was phrased in the disjunctive. However, this sentence impermissibly exceeds a one-cell increase from the original guideline range cell. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14); Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla. 1989). We therefore remand to the trial court to reduce the sentence by the amount it exceeds the next higher cell. Id. Sinks does not have to be present for resentencing.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Sinks v. State

Court Name: Supreme Court of Florida

Date Published: Oct 12, 1995

Citations: 661 So. 2d 303; 1995 WL 598594; 84832

Docket Number: 84832

Court Abbreviation: Fla.