Barfield v. State

Decision Date09 January 1992
Docket NumberNo. 76524,76524
Parties17 Fla. L. Weekly S32 Tobias BARFIELD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Carol Cobourn Asbury, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

HARDING, Justice.

We have for review Barfield v. State, 564 So.2d 616, 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following question to be of great public importance:

DOES THE TEMPORAL PROXIMITY OF CRIMES ALONE PROVIDE A VALID REASON FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES WITHOUT A FINDING OF A PERSISTENT PATTERN OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT?

We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and we answer the question in the negative.

The trial court convicted Barfield of attempted trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Barfield committed these offenses ninety days after his release from prison for trafficking in cocaine. The trial court departed from the permissible guidelines sentence and sentenced Barfield to twenty years. On appeal, the district court concluded that Barfield's commission of " 'another Trafficking in Cocaine offense within a very short time of his release from prison' " was a valid basis for the upward-departure sentence. Barfield, 564 So.2d at 616 (quoting trial judge's reason for departure).

This Court has noted that the timing of an offense in relation to prior offenses and the release from incarceration or supervision is not an aspect of a defendant's prior criminal history which is factored into the determination of a presumptive guidelines sentence. Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987). We have approved departure sentences based upon the temporal proximity of crimes where it is "shown that the crimes committed demonstrate a defendant's involvement in a continuing and persistent pattern of criminal activity." State v. Jones, 530 So.2d 53, 56 (Fla.1988); accord State v. Simpson, 554 So.2d 506 (Fla.1989). In Smith v. State, 579 So.2d 75 (Fla.1991), although this Court acknowledged that Jones and Simpson approved departure based upon temporal proximity, we disapproved a departure sentence based solely on a persistent pattern of criminal activity, closely related in time, although the pattern was not escalating towards more violent or serious crimes. Smith, 579 So.2d at 76.

We address this issue again in an effort to clarify when the temporal proximity of crimes can be a valid reason for departure from the sentencing guidelines. We are guided by the goal of the sentencing guidelines "to eliminate unwarranted variation in the sentencing process," Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(b), and to permit departures from the presumptive sentences only for clear and convincing reasons. While an offense committed soon after release from incarceration or supervision may show a disregard for the law and justify a judge's displeasure and desire for a departure sentence, such a persistent but nonescalating pattern of criminal activity is not a sufficient reason to depart from the guidelines. Smith, 579 So.2d 75. Moreover, Florida's habitual offender statute provides a statutory means of dealing with persistent criminal conduct. Section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes the court, upon compliance with the statutory procedures, to "impose an extended term of imprisonment" for persistent criminal conduct. Therefore, we find that temporal proximity alone does not constitute a clear and convincing reason to depart from the guidelines, and recede from Jones and Simpson to the extent that those opinions authorized departure solely on that basis. We recognize that section 921.001(8), Florida Statutes (1987), authorizes departure from the sentencing guidelines "when credible facts ... demonstrate that the defendant's prior record ... and the current criminal offense for which the defendant is being sentenced indicate an escalating pattern of criminal conduct." Section 921.001(8) also provides that this escalating pattern may be evidenced by a ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • Moline v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • September 25, 2012
    ...in either the degree ofcrime or the sentence which may be imposed, when compared with the defendant's previous offenses.Barfield v. State, 594 So.2d 259, 261 (Fla. 1992) (emphasis added). At the resentencing hearing, the State argued:Now, that pattern of conduct may be evidenced by a progre......
  • DAILEY v. Sec'y, Case No. 8:07-CV-1897-T-27MAP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • April 1, 2011
  • Jory v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 3, 1994
    ...copy of the defendant's prior criminal record as shown in the presentence investigation report is attached. See Barfield v. State, 17 Fla. L. Weekly S32 (Fla. January 9, 1992). The departure sentence imposed in this case would remain the same if any one of the above stated grounds are affir......
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1992
    ...or other supervision shows an escalating or persistent pattern of criminal behavior." 573 So.2d at 431. Recently in Barfield v. State, 594 So.2d 259 (Fla.1992), we clarified when temporal proximity could be used as a reason for a departure from the guidelines. This Court noted in Barfield t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT