Griffin v. State, 67224
| Decision Date | 05 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 67224,67224 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 624,479 So.2d 739 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 624 Donna Harris GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Certified Great Public Importance.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Michael E. Raiden, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Candace M. Sunderland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.
We have for review Griffin v. State, 470 So.2d 103, 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), in which the district court certified the following as a question of great public importance:
When an appellate court finds that a sentencing court relied upon a reason or reasons that are impermissible under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 in making its decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines should the appellate court examine the other reasons given by the sentencing court to determine if those reasons justify a departure from the guidelines or should the case be remanded for a resentencing?
Id. at 104. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(B)(4), Fla.Const. We have answered this identical question in both State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985), and Brinson v. State, 476 So.2d 162 (Fla.1985), in which we held that "when a departure sentence is grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons, the sentence should be reversed and remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the impermissible reason(s) would not have affected the departure sentence." See also Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).
In the case at bar, the district court affirmed the departure sentence despite finding that "some reasons appear to be of questionable validity as a basis for departure."
Accordingly, we quash the decision and remand to the district court for further remand to the trial court for resentencing.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin v. State, BK-211
...be a valid reason to depart in a kidnapping case. Griffin v. State, 470 So.2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA) decision quashed on other grounds, 479 So.2d 739 (Fla.1985); Ochoa v. State, 476 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In Tompkins v. State, 483 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), however, the Second Distric......
-
Agatone v. State
...847. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. We have answered this question previously in Griffin v. State, 479 So.2d 739 (Fla.1985), State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985), and Brinson v. State, 476 So.2d 162 (Fla.1985) in which we held that when a departu......
-
Griffin v. State
...1985), in which the District Court certified a question of great public importance. In our opinion dated December 5, 1985, Griffin v. State, 479 So.2d 739 (Fla.1985), we answered the certified question, holding that a departure sentence grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons......
-
Brown v. State, 85-537
...reason would not have affected the departure sentence, we must reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. Griffin v. State, 479 So.2d 739 (Fla.1985). An examination of the court's reasons for the departure for the purpose of determining whether they are "clear and convincing" is inhe......