Cannada v. State, 84-1131
| Decision Date | 12 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1131,84-1131 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1698 Ollie William CANNADA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow and Douglas S. Connor, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Frank Migliore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Ollie William Cannada appeals his convictions and sentences for injuring a police dog and battery on a law enforcement officer. We affirm the convictions, but reverse the sentences.
On the evening of April 5, 1983, Cannada took a short cut through the University of Tampa grounds on his way home from his construction job. A female University police officer with a police dog told Cannada that he was trespassing and asked him to leave. Cannada protested the officer's interference and kept walking. When the officer's statement that she was placing Cannada under arrest for trespassing did not stop him, she grabbed his arm. A struggle ensued during which the officer was pushed to the ground and the police dog attacked Cannada. When the dog attacked, Cannada grabbed it by its choke collar, lifted the dog over his head and slammed it onto the ground, thereby injuring the dog. Cannada fled and was apprehended a short time later.
The state charged Cannada with resisting arrest with violence, trespass, injury to a police dog, and battery on a law enforcement officer. Cannada was declared incompetent to stand trial and was placed in the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee. Seven months later, upon receiving the opinions of Cannada's physicians and a stipulation by defense counsel, Cannada was found competent by the trial judge to stand trial. In exchange for the state's agreement to dismiss the charges of resisting arrest with violence and trespass, Cannada entered an "open" plea of nolo contendere to the charges of injuring a police dog and battery on a law enforcement officer. The "open" plea here was without reservations and unfettered by any other agreement save for the state's representation that it would not proceed further on the resisting arrest and trespass charges.
At sentencing, the trial judge, prosecutor and defense counsel all assumed that the sentencing guidelines contained in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 applied. The guidelines recommended a non-state prison sanction. When the trial judge indicated that he might depart from the guidelines, Cannada moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that he had not been made aware that he could be sentenced outside the recommended range. The trial judge denied the motion and, departing from the guidelines, sentenced Cannada to the maximum sentence in this case of five years consecutive on each count.
Cannada argues here that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea. We disagree. Cannada only agreed to plead nolo contendere in exchange for the state's dismissal of two counts of the information. The state kept its side of the bargain. Cannada did not condition his plea on a sentence within the sentencing guidelines recommended range. The trial judge did not err in denying Cannada's motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm his convictions.
We reverse the sentences imposed, however, as Cannada did not affirmatively select sentencing pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. Because the crime occurred prior to October 1, 1983, and Cannada was sentenced thereafter, the guidelines did not apply unless he affirmatively selected them. § 921.001(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983). The record reflects that, although all parties assumed the guidelines applied, Cannada never clearly and unequivocally selected them. The trial judge erred in imposing a guidelines sentence absent Cannada's affirmative selection. Hart v. State, 464 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Jordan v. State, 460 So.2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Rodriguez v. State, 458 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Although it is not necessary for us to now decide this issue, we have grave doubts about the validity of any of the reasons used by the trial judge for departing from the guidelines recommended sentence. The first reason given, that Cannada had a job, was considered a responsible citizen and did not abuse drugs or alcohol, is patently unconvincing. The judge also departed because of Cannada's prior record, consisting of three offenses. Cannada was convicted, however, of only one of the offenses. A departure from the recommended sentence based on offenses for which no convictions were obtained is invalid. Rule 3.701(d)(11).
Two other reasons given for departure were injury to the police officer and her fear that her life was in danger during the incident. The only evidence as to the officer's injuries and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Forehand v. State, BT-110
-
Allen v. State, 84-1962
...that the court cannot consider factors relating to instant offense for which convictions have not been obtained); Cannada v. State, 472 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Baker v. State, 466 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (cases holding that the court cannot use factors which are inherent elemen......
-
Baxter v. State, 85-1221
...court did not accept the State's recommendation as to the sentence. See State v. Adams, 342 So.2d 818 (Fla.1977); Cannada v. State, 472 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We find the following cases cited by appellant not to be in point: Thomas v. State, 458 So.2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Gambl......
-
Coleman v. State, 86-1659
...with the police is likewise an invalid basis for departure. See Sloan v. State, 472 So.2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Cannada v. State, 472 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Carnegie v. State, 498 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA Finding no valid reasons given for a departure sentence, we reverse and reman......