Brown v. State, 85-25
| Citation | 481 So.2d 1271,11 Fla. L. Weekly 211 |
| Decision Date | 16 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-25,85-25 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 211 Perry C. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Larry B. Henderson, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
On appellant's first appeal his sentence as an habitual offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1983), was vacated because of the failure of the trial judge to make the requisite findings to support that sentence. See Brown v. State, 457 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). On remand appellant elected to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines and the trial court departed from the recommended guideline sentencing range. The trial judge, at the sentencing hearing, gave appellant many reasons for the decision to depart. To conform to the letter of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11) the trial court later filed "a written statement delineating the reasons for the departure" which listed five reasons. Appellant appeals the departure sentence. We are forced to reverse.
In Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court held:
when a departure sentence is grounded on both valid and invalid reasons that the sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence.
The reasons given at the sentencing hearing included several invalid (impermissible) reasons for departure as well as some valid ones. Because in this case the trial court filed a formal written statement of reasons for departure we are willing to assume that the invalid reasons given orally at sentencing but not included in the written statement would not have affected the imposition of the departure sentence. Nevertheless, we must reverse because the written sentence also contained some invalid reasons (i.e., the defendant's "legal status at the time of offense" and his prior criminal convictions, see Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985) ) as well as one or more valid reasons (i.e., the fact that while confined the defendant made a bomb threat against the prosecutor and arresting officers).
When a sentencing judge, or anyone else, assigns multiple reasons for arriving at a decision or conclusion, in the absence of an explicit and clear statement from the decision maker that the same decision would have been reached in the absence of certain of the reasons given for it, it is difficult to envision any way for the State, or anyone other than the decision maker, to show or to know beyond a reasonable doubt the weight given or not given by the decision maker to any one of the reasons assigned for the decision. 1 This is written to assure that sentencing judges understand the impact of Albritton. There is great danger of reversible error in discussing on the record any reasons for imposing a departure sentence other than reasons absolutely vital to the making of the decision to depart. 2
The sentence is vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing in view of Albritton and Hendrix.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
1 See Head v. State, 473 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). "[B]ecause we cannot determine how much weight the trial court placed on the eleven impermissible reasons in departing from the guidelines, we remand the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Degroat v. State, 85-1313
...do at any particular sentencing or resentencing where only permissible reasons for departure are to be considered. See Brown v. State, 481 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). See also Hankey v. State, 485 So.2d 827 (Fla.1986), where the supreme court did not undertake to guess at what the trial......
-
Nixon v. State, BC-196
...same conclusion on this reason alone. Young v. State, 455 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (emphasis added). See also Brown v. State, 481 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The second issue addressed by the Florida Supreme Court in Albritton was the determination by the appellate courts of t......
-
Safford v. State, 85-1136
...trial judge would have imposed the same departure sentence in the absence of invalid reasons given has been noted in Brown v. State, 481 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). See also Hankey v. State, 485 So.2d 827 The departure sentence is vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing. SENTENC......
-
Browning v. State
...of the offense and his prior criminal convictions are invalid reasons for departure. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11); Brown v. State, 481 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Gonzalez v. State, 581 So.2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Nor, upon remand, can the defendant's bond status be used and score......