Gilbert v. State, 95-2330
| Decision Date | 16 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-2330,95-2330 |
| Citation | 680 So.2d 1132 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2220 Thomas GILBERT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Craig J. Trocino, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Doquyen T. Nguyen, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and FLETCHER, JJ.
Gilbert appeals from his sentences to four consecutive thirty-year and six concurrent fifteen-year terms for sexual offenses against his daughter, which were alleged and shown to have occurred on unspecified dates between December 13, 1993 and March 24, 1994. The 1994 sentencing guidelines, which apply only to offenses "committed on or after January 1, 1994," § 921.001(4)(b) 2, Fla. Stat. (1995), yielded a permissible range of 23 years to 38.5 years imprisonment. The trial court, however, sentenced within the "guidelines enacted effective October 1, 1983 [which] apply to all felonies except capitol felonies, committed on or after October 1, 1983, and before January 1, 1994," § 921.001(4)(b) 1, Fla. Stat. (1995), and which permitted a sentence of 27 years to life. We agree with the defendant's contention, and the state's concession, that this was error.
It is admittedly impossible to determine from either the information or the evidence whether the crimes were committed before or after January 1, 1994. Because the conclusion that they occurred after that date which results in the application of the lower, 1994, guidelines, is more favorable to the defendant, the familiar "rule of lenity" requires that he be given the benefit of that doubt. § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. (1995); see State v. Griffith, 675 So.2d 911 (Fla.1996)(uncertainty as to the date of offenses resolved in favor of being committed before defendant reached sixteen and thus subject to lesser penalties).
The sentence of 120 years imposed below represented an upward departure from the thus-controlling 1994 guidelines range, which was not supported by any contemporaneous written reasons and must therefore be vacated. Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla.1990). Since, however, the sentence was within the guidelines the trial court erroneously applied, it should be granted the opportunity, after remand, to enter a departure sentence appropriately supported by written reasons. See State v. Betancourt, 552 So.2d 1107 (Fla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cairl v. State
...2d DCA 1997); Duer v. Moore, 765 So.2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Maitre v. State, 770 So.2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Gilbert v. State, 680 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Each of these cases cites State v. Griffith, 675 So.2d 911 (Fla.1996), as authority for applying the rule of In Griffith, ......
-
Duer v. Moore
...took place. No evidence established the dates on which the offenses actually occurred. The present case thus resembles Gilbert v. State, 680 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), where offenses were alleged to have occurred on unspecified dates between December 13, 1993, and March 24, 1994. Until ......
-
Gilbert v. State, 97-1203
...C.J., and GREEN and SHEVIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. After we remanded this case for resentencing under the 1994 guidelines in Gilbert v. State, 680 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the trial judge imposed a departure sentence on grounds of (a) heightened premeditation, State v. Obojes, 604 So.2d 474 ......
-
Glynn v. State, 4D03-2612.
...Id. at 314; see also State v. Griffith, 675 So.2d 911 (Fla.1996); Maitre v. State, 770 So.2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Gilbert v. State, 680 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We distinguish this case from Gross v. State, 820 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), because that case involved a continuin......