Brinson v. State, 84-1837

Decision Date15 February 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-1837,84-1837
Citation10 Fla. L. Weekly 427,463 So.2d 564
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 427 James Arthur BRINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; Oliver L. Green, Jr., Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and David Dwiggins, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.

This defendant challenges sentences representing a departure from the recommended sentence indicated by his guidelines score sheet. The trial judge gave seven written reasons for the departure, five of which appear to us to be valid and proper, and two of which seem to us to be questionable. On balance, it would appear that the trial judge should be affirmed based on the five valid reasons rather than reversed with directions to reconsider the sentence. We have declined to reverse when only one of several reasons was found improper. Willard v. State, 462 So.2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In this case, however, we affirm but certify the same question that our sister court certified in Young v. State, 455 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984):

WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASONS THAT ARE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.701 IN MAKING ITS DECISION TO DEPART FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, SHOULD THE APPELLATE COURT EXAMINE THE OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY A DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENCING?

AFFIRMED.

FRANK, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F. (Ret.), J., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Steiner v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 21, 1985
    ...it is clear that the trial court would have entered the same sentence if the improper grounds had not been considered. Brinson v. State, 463 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (five out of seven reasons for departure proper; sentence affirmed); compare Baker v. State, supra (only one of five reas......
  • Hall v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1987
    ...The court concluded that this may constitute a clear and convincing ground to deviate if supported by the record. Accord Brinson v. State, 463 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA) quashed on other grounds, 476 So.2d 162 In Staten v. State, 500 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), the defendant was convicted fo......
  • Baker v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 1985
    ...455 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (one out of five reasons for departure proper; case remanded for resentencing), with Brinson v. State, 463 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (five out of seven reasons for departure proper; sentence affirmed); Marshall v. State, 468 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) ......
  • Jones v. Jones, AS-153
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 1985
  • 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