Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 08 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 66921,66921 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 208 Ronnie D. BROWN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and Larry G. Bryant, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Gregory G. Costas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We accepted jurisdiction to answer a certified question of the district court of appeal in this case. Brown v. State, 464 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The court posed the following question:
WHETHER A DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PROTECTION AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAWS IS VIOLATED, WHEN HE AFFIRMATIVELY SELECTS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 921.001(4)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES (1983), TO BE SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THE GUIDELINES BUT THERE IS NO SHOWING IN THE RECORD THAT THE COURT EXPLAINED THAT BY SELECTING GUIDELINES SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT WAIVES HIS ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE.
Id. at 194. We answered a similar question in the negative in Cochran v. State, 476 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985), and held that an affirmative selection to be sentenced under the guidelines is all that is required.
Brown asks us to review other portions of the district court's opinion, particularly in view of our decision in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). We decline to do so, although a few words are in order on one of these issues. The district court found that it should not review the extent of the departure sentence; this is contrary to our holding in Albritton. We, however, have reviewed the record and find that under the facts of this case the trial judge had good grounds for departure and that, although one ground for departure is questionable, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the exclusion of that ground would affect neither the judge's determination to depart nor the extent of the departure. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in imposing the sentence in this case. The opinion of the district court is accordingly approved.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nixon v. State, BC-196
...not have affected the judge's decision to depart from the recommended guidelines sentence or the extent of his departure. Brown v. State, 487 So.2d 1073 (Fla.1986); State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985); Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). The impermissible reason does not fall......
-
State v. Myers
...the exclusion of invalid grounds would affect neither the judge's determination to depart nor the extent of the departure. Brown v. State, 487 So.2d 1073 (Fla.1986); Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). Because it is not clear that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have ......
-
Blackmon v. State
...Id. at 269. The Fourth District discussed Brown v. State, 464 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), approved on other grounds,487 So.2d 1073 (Fla.1986). Hall, 767 So.2d at 562. In Brown, the First District held section 812.025 “inapplicable in situations where ... the defendant pleads nolo co......
-
Bowles v. Singletary, 88199
...election to accept a newly created program waives any potential ex post facto argument the petitioner may have had. See Brown v. State, 487 So.2d 1073 (Fla.1986); Cochran v. State, 476 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985); cf. Joyner v. State, 594 So.2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)(holding that acceptance of com......
-
Dealing in stolen property, grand theft, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
...of fact" applied only to a jury verdict, citing Brown v. State, 464 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1985), approved on other grounds by, 487 So. 2d 1073 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 930 (1986), and certified conflict with Victory v. State, 422 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. (15) Hall, 826 So. 2d ......