No. 86-1062 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Nov 12, 1986
This is an appeal of a sentence which upwardly departs from the guidelines and provides for four' consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment. The trial judge listed three bases for deviating from the guidelines sentence range of two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. Because all three reasons are invalid, we rev.erse.
The first ground, that the defendant violated his probation, cannot support the trial judge’s seven-cell departure where the general rule provides for a one-cell increase for probation violation. See Ehrenshaft v. State, 478 So. 2d 842" date_filed="1985-11-05" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." case_name="Ehrenshaft v. State">478 So.2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So.2d 831 (Fla.1986).
The second ground, economic hardship on the victims, is not a permissible reason for departure from the presumptive sentence. Hankey v. State, 485 So. 2d 827" date_filed="1986-04-03" court="Fla." case_name="Hankey v. State">485 So.2d 827 (Fla.1986).
Finally, the third ground for departure cannot be sustained where the trial court’s assessment that the defendant committed the burglary “in a particularly professional manner” is not supported by the record. See Mullen v. State, 483 So. 2d 754" date_filed="1986-01-30" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." case_name="Mullen v. State">483 So.2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
For the above-stated reasons, the sentence is reversed and the case remanded for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.
Reversed and remanded.