Blair v. State, 89-893
| Decision Date | 04 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-893,89-893 |
| Citation | 559 So.2d 349 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D904 Vasten E. BLAIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender; Lynn A. Williams, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellant/defendant appeals his judgment for armed robbery and first-degree murder, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress two incriminating statements made following his arrest. Appellant also challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court, alleging several bases for reversal.
We affirm the judgment of guilt on both counts, finding ample evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the consent to search given by appellant's girlfriend, which eventually led to appellant's arrest and subsequent statements, was given voluntarily and not improperly coerced. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968).
With regard to appellant's sentence, however, we find it necessary to reverse in part and remand for resentencing. At a hearing on March 23, 1989, the trial court sentenced appellant on the first-degree murder count to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years. On the armed robbery count, the trial court departed from the recommended guideline sentence of 12-17 years and sentenced appellant to life imprisonment with a three-year mandatory minimum, to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for first-degree murder. Although the trial court announced at the hearing that its departure was based on appellant's escalating pattern of criminal activity, the written order listing this reason was not prepared until after the hearing, and was not filed until March 28, 1989--five days after the hearing.
Initially, we find that the trial court's reason for departure on the armed robbery count was proper. The facts in the record clearly support a pattern of criminal activity escalating from nonviolent property crimes to escape, disorderly conduct, aggravated battery, weapons charges, and finally, in the instant case, armed robbery and first-degree murder. Under these facts, the trial court properly departed from the recommended guildelines sentence based on an escalating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blair v. State
...R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent. PER CURIAM. We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Blair v. State, 559 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), because of apparent conflict with Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990), and Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987). ......
-
Downs v. State
...there were separate distinct crimes, each of which required a minimum mandatory sentence.4 We disapprove Blair v. State, 559 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), quashed in part, 598 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1992), wherein the court disallowed stacking a 25-year minimum mandatory sentence for first-degree......
-
Blair v. State, 89-893
...Tallahassee, for appellee. OPINION ON MANDATE SHIVERS, Judge. The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed our opinion in Blair v. State, 559 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), pursuant to its discretionary review power. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution; 598 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1992). In Blair, ......
-
Blair v. State
...794 566 So.2d 794 Blair (Vasten E.) v. State NO. 75,937 Supreme Court of Florida. JUL 25, 1990 Appeal From: 1st DCA 559 So.2d 349 Accepting ...