Coleman v. State, 86-1659
| Decision Date | 02 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1659,86-1659 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 594,521 So.2d 265 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 594 Ronald COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Ronald Coleman appeals consecutive fifteen and five-year sentences in prison for delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine, respectively. The recommended guidelines sentence was twelve to thirty months. This is the second appeal of this sentence and, finding no valid reasons for departure, we again reverse.
In 1983 Coleman was charged with possession and delivery of cocaine. In 1984 he was charged with another count of possession of cocaine and two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison on the 1983 delivery charge and five years consecutively on the 1984 possession charge. The other charges were dismissed. In departing from the recommended guidelines range, the court stated that it would include in written reasons for departure:
his background, his prior convictions, the fact that while under arrest for selling drugs to anyone to [sic] happened to come by on the street, and in the Court system, not appearing in court, the officers go out to arrest him again on that offense and during that he is not only found in possession of drugs while facing a delivery of cocaine charge, but struggles violently with the police officers.
A written order was filed some three weeks later which included the reasons given verbally by the judge as well as, "the defendant's insistence to the court at sentencing that the officers were lying ..." and the lack of a "reasonable belief that the defendant can be rehabilitated." Coleman filed timely notice of appeal.
On the prior appeal, Coleman v. State, 486 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), this court reversed and remanded for resentencing because there was no indication in the record that Coleman ever affirmatively elected to be sentenced under the guidelines for the 1983 charge, and because there was no scoresheet in the record, nor evidence that the court considered a scoresheet. The decision, written by Judge Hall, indicated that if the trial judge again departed from the guidelines, he should be guided by certain cited cases which invalidated the reasons given for departure. Nevertheless, we again have this sentence for review.
At the resentencing hearing before the trial judge on May 28, 1986, the following occurred:
When you do that and they get the notice of appeal filed, then I will discharge you and you submit a written order to be paid for your services for him and the sentence stands. We do have the scoresheet and he has selected the guidelines. He objects to my exceeding the guidelines. I note that objection, and he can appeal it.
Coleman's motion to reduce or correct the sentence was denied and notice of appeal was again timely filed.
Coleman argues on appeal only that the court erred in departing from the guidelines because the reasons given are invalid. Coleman does not question whether he was lawfully resentenced after the remand. Although the trial judge had ample opportunity to do so, he again neglected to tell Coleman the reasons for the departure. The court did not even inform Coleman what his sentence was. We assume, as the appellant apparently does, that the docket notation in the record "sent. stands" means that the original consecutive sentences of fifteen and five years were again imposed. Because Coleman did not argue the procedural posture, we need not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 88-529
...1986); but see Brown v. State, 535 So.2d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); see also Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501 (Fla.1986); Coleman v. State, 521 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), or unsupported by the record--escalating pattern of violent behavior. 1 See McIntyre v. State, 539 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d D......
-
Tran v. State, 94-03677
...the written order may be substantively different from those orally articulated to the appellant at sentencing. See id.; Coleman v. State, 521 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We need not address this concern given our conclusion that the departure sentence must be reversed for other reasons.3 ......
-
Whitaker v. State, 87-1475
...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 1988). The sentence is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing within the guidelines ......
-
Kirby v. State, 88-3229
...disregard of the law and inability to be rehabilitated this is an impermissible reason for departure. See e.g., Coleman v. State, 521 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The state concedes that this reason will not support departure from the guidelines recommendation. But where multiple reasons a......