Gaynor v. State, 86-682
Decision Date | 18 February 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 86-682,86-682 |
Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1008,505 So.2d 467 |
Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1008, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 589 Marcus GAYNOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Brad Permar, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Theda R. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, Marcus Gaynor, was convicted of two counts of burglary, carrying a concealed firearm, grand theft and the felonious possession of a firearm. The scoresheet recommended a sentence of 9 to 12 years. The trial court, departing from the guidelines, sentenced Gaynor to 15 consecutive years on each burglary count and 5 years on all of the other charges to run concurrently with the burglary sentences. Thus, Gaynor was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
Gaynor contends the trial court erred in exceeding the guidelines. First, he asserts that the two burglary convictions arose from a single continuous episode thus prohibiting the imposition of consecutive sentences on each count. State v. Ames, 467 So.2d 994 (Fla.1985). The record reveals that although the burglaries occurred on the same evening, two separate homes were entered. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences; the burglaries occurred at different times and places. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983).
We agree with Gaynor, however, that each of the nine reasons, set forth below, is an invalid reason for departure:
1. Both dwellings were occupied by entire families, including young children, who were asleep at the time of the burglaries.
The appellant was charged with second degree burglary of a dwelling pursuant to section 810.02(3), Florida Statutes (1985). Entry into an occupied dwelling is an essential element of that crime. An inherent component of a crime cannot be used to justify departure. Cannada v. State, 472 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
2. A confrontation could have easily occurred because Mrs. Sutton awakened to see the defendant on all fours on the floor next to the bed she and her husband were occupying.
The second reason also encompasses a component of the crime charged. Id. Moreover, there is no evidence that a confrontation took place. Factors relating to an offense for which convictions are not obtained cannot support a guideline departure. Dixon v. State, 492 So.2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
3. The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant entered both houses while in possession of a fully-operable firearm although the state did not charge the burglary as such.
Dixon also renders this reason impermissible as a basis for departure.
4. Defendant has a long history of burglary convictions dating back many years and has been sentenced to lengthy state prison sentences previously which obviously have not discouraged his propensity for committing burglaries.
Previous convictions which are factored into the scoresheet computation cannot justify departure. Frank v. State, 490 So.2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Furthermore, the fact that incarceration has failed to rehabilitate the offender will not, standing alone, constitute a valid basis for departure. Cf. Booker v. State, 482 So.2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
5. The only reasonable approach in this case is to warehouse defendant in state prison so he cannot commit further burglaries for a substantial period of time.
Speculation that the offender will again engage in criminal behavior has been held an invalid reason for departure. Lindsey v. State, 453 So.2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
6. The defendant has shown an inability to be rehabilitated.
The unexplicated conclusion that Gaynor is incapable of rehabilitation is invalid. Scobee v. State, 488 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
7. The defendant was recently released from custody for a similar type of offense when he committed these crimes.
The timing of offenses can serve as a valid basis for departure when supported by the record. Fleming v. State, 456 So.2d 1300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Here, however, the record does not disclose Gaynor's release date. Hence, we cannot determine whether the timing of the offenses will serve to support departure.
8. Due to the nature of the crime, the defendant left emotional scars on the victims.
The state agrees that the record does not support this departure ground.
9. The crimes showed planning and premeditation as evidenced by the use of gloves and the distance that the defendant had to travel from his home to commit the offenses.
In Brown v. State, 483 So.2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), we determined that premeditation will not support departure from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coleman v. State, 86-1659
...offenses for which he has not been convicted. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11). See State v. Tyner, 506 So.2d 405 (Fla.1987); Gaynor v. State, 505 So.2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). But see Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987). Because Coleman was not charged with failing to appear, and the bat......
-
Sprow v. State, 92-2354
...(shooting at three different police officers during course of hot pursuit does not constitute single criminal episode); Gaynor v. State, 505 So.2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (burglaries of two separate homes committed on the same evening does not constitute single criminal episode); Connolly v.......
-
Mendel v. State, 87-1924
...and for the sophisticated manner in which the trafficking was committed. State v. Tyner, 506 So.2d 405 (Fla.1987); Gaynor v. State, 505 So.2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Dixon v. State, 492 So.2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). While the court may consider the circumstances of an offense, it may not c......
-
Gaynor v. State, 87-2387
...Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. RYDER, Acting Chief Judge. This case was previously before this court. Gaynor v. State, 505 So.2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We expressly held "Entry into an occupied dwelling is an essential element of [the crime charged]" and cannot be used as a......