Broomhead v. State, 85-1871
| Decision Date | 14 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1871,85-1871 |
| Citation | 497 So.2d 734,11 Fla. L. Weekly 2386 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2386 Phillip Lewis BROOMHEAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant Phillip Broomhead was convicted and sentenced for commission of three offenses. On appeal he raises one point: that the trial judge improperly departed from the recommended guideline sentence. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
The defendant was convicted of trespass, tampering with a witness, and threatening a witness. The trial court departed from the recommended guideline sentence of any nonstate prison sanction. The defendant was sentenced to one year on the trespass count, two years on the tampering with a witness count, and two years on the threatening a witness count. All three sentences were to run concurrently and be followed by three years' probation. The court gave the following reasons for departure: "Similar crimes committed in past, prior violation of probation less than two months after committing same crime--protection of victim, total disregard of prior court directions."
The court's first two reasons, similar crimes committed in the past and violation of a prior probation, are invalid because they are based on the defendant's prior record. Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985).
The court's third reason, protection of the victim, is an invalid basis for departure. Williams v. State, 493 So.2d 48 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); Martinez-Diaz v. State, 484 So.2d 633 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). Moreover, this reason is based on speculation that the defendant will again engage in criminal conduct, which is likewise an invalid reason for departure. Lindsey v. State, 453 So.2d 485 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). The court's final reason, total disregard of prior court directions, is an invalid basis for departure because it involves factors relating to the instant offenses for which convictions have not been obtained. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11); see Santiago v. State, 478 So.2d 47 (Fla.1985).
We affirm the defendant's convictions. We vacate defendant's sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. State, 86-499
...be rehabilitated. The first reason, "defendant poses a future danger to society," is an invalid ground for departure. Broomhead v. State, 497 So.2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Campbell v. State, 486 So.2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Lindsey v. State, 453 So.2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The other reas......
-
Coleman v. State, 86-1837
...So.2d 161 (Fla.1985). In addition, speculating on possible future violence or criminal conduct is impermissible. Broomhead v. State, 497 So.2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Young v. State, 489 So.2d 199, 200 (Fla. 2d DCA Reason # 2 is valid. Jakubowski v. State, 494 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 2d D......
-
Whitaker v. State, 87-1475
...v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Whitehead v. State, supra; Montalvo v. State, 520 So.2d 292 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987); Broomhead v. State, 497 So.2d 734 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986); Coleman v. State, 515 So.2d 313 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987); Coleman v. State, 521 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2nd DCA The sentence is the......