Albritton v. State, No. 66169
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | SHAW; BOYD; ADKINS |
| Citation | 476 So.2d 158,10 Fla. L. Weekly 426 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 426 Lloyd E. ALBRITTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 66169 |
| Decision Date | 29 August 1985 |
Page 158
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1985.
Page 159
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Gary W. Tinsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.
SHAW, Justice.
This case, Albritton v. State, 458 So.2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), is before us because of direct and express conflict with Young v. State, 455 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
The facts of the case are recited in the district court opinion. For our purposes, it is enough to say that the trial judge elected to depart from the sentencing guidelines of rule 3.701, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and gave as reasons for the departure both an invalid and valid reason. The district court affirmed on the basis that "a departure sentence can be upheld on appeal if it is supported by any valid ("clear and convincing") reason without the necessity of a remand in every case." Albritton, 458 So.2d at 321. The district court also held the extent of departure from the guidelines is not subject to appellate review provided there is no violation of the maximum statutory sentence authorized by the legislature for the offense in question. We disagree on both points.
The first question is essentially one of what standard of review should be applied by an appellate court when a trial court bases its decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines on both valid and invalid reasons. Broadly, there are three potential answers to the question: (1) reliance on an invalid reason, regardless of the presence of a valid reason, is per se reversible error; (2) reliance on a valid reason, regardless of the presence of invalid reasons, is per se affirmable; or (3) reliance on valid and invalid reasons should be reviewed applying a harmless error analysis. Both parties urge that we adopt a harmless error analysis. There are, however, significant differences between the parties as to what presumptions should be applied using the standard. Petitioner urges that we follow the approach of Carney v. State, 458 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and presume that the error is reversible unless the reviewing court determines the departure sentence "would not be affected by elimination of the impermissible reasons or factors stated." Id. at 17. In support, petitioner cites probation revocation cases where the courts have reversed revocation orders and remanded for reconsideration when the reviewing court has been unable to determine whether the trial judge would have revoked probation in the absence of an improper ground. Watts v. State, 410 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Aaron v. State, 400...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Felts v. State, No. BJ-413
...use of the impact on the victim is prohibited by rule 3.701(b)(1). 3 Appellant seeks remand for resentencing under Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), in the event the court finds some of the reasons for departure valid and some The State asserts that appellant's high speed flight......
-
Files v. State, No. 89-1080
...726 (1984); McGee v. State, 435 So.2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 444 So.2d 417 (Fla.1984). 3 See also Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985); Riggins v. State, 477 So.2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Steiner v. State, 469 So.2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So.2d 118 4......
-
Tuthill v. State, No. 86-847
...458 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see also Richardson v. State, 472 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). As established in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985), this rule requires us to review the extent of the deviation from the guidelines on an abuse of discretion standard. After ......
-
Williams v. State, No. 87-1599
...on the basis of the two other stated reasons for departure. 2 See Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987); Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). Moreover, while we do not approve the trial court's failure to articulate reasons for departure at sentencing, we find the omission do......
-
Felts v. State, No. BJ-413
...use of the impact on the victim is prohibited by rule 3.701(b)(1). 3 Appellant seeks remand for resentencing under Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), in the event the court finds some of the reasons for departure valid and some The State asserts that appellant's high speed flight......
-
Files v. State, No. 89-1080
...726 (1984); McGee v. State, 435 So.2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 444 So.2d 417 (Fla.1984). 3 See also Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985); Riggins v. State, 477 So.2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Steiner v. State, 469 So.2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So.2d 118 4......
-
Tuthill v. State, No. 86-847
...458 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see also Richardson v. State, 472 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). As established in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985), this rule requires us to review the extent of the deviation from the guidelines on an abuse of discretion standard. After ......
-
Williams v. State, No. 87-1599
...on the basis of the two other stated reasons for departure. 2 See Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987); Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). Moreover, while we do not approve the trial court's failure to articulate reasons for departure at sentencing, we find the omission do......