Griffis v. State
| Decision Date | 16 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 69800,69800 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 424 Joseph GRIFFIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Patricia Conners, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We have for review Griffis v. State, 497 So.2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in which the district court certified the following question of great public importance:
DOES A TRIAL COURT'S STATEMENT, MADE AT THE TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, THAT IT WOULD DEPART FOR ANY ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BOTH VALID AND INVALID REASONS ARE FOUND ON REVIEW, SATISFY THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN ALBRITTON V. STATE?
Id. at 297. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and answer the question in the negative.
The obvious difficulty posed by an affirmative answer is the danger recognized by Judge Barfield in his concurring opinion: some trial judges may be tempted to mechanically include a "boiler plate" statement without conscientiously weighing whether his or her decision would be affected by the elimination of one or more of several reasons for departure. 497 So.2d at 298.
Because of this concern, this Court rejected the recommendation of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission in December 1985 that such a statement be permitted. The Court said then:
There is too great a temptation to include this phraseology in all departure sentences and we do not believe it appropriate to approve boiler plate language. The trial judge must conscientiously weigh relevant factors in imposing sentences; in most instances an improper inclusion of an erroneous factor affects an objective determination of an appropriate sentence.
Moreover, in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), we held that where the appellate court finds some reasons for departure to be invalid, it must reverse unless the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same without the invalid reasons. We cannot in good conscience say that such a standard can be met through the anticipatory language of the trial judge rather than the reweighing of only the appropriate departure factors. The trial judge should have the opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Felts v. State
...the offense for which convictions were not obtained (the high speed chase and the resulting fatal accident). 7 In Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987), the Florida Supreme Court held that a statement by the trial court that it would depart for any of the reasons given, standing alone......
-
Tuthill v. State, 86-847
...doubt" that the trial judge would have departed on the basis of the valid ground of the nature of the offense alone. Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987); Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158...
-
Williams v. State, 87-1599
...court would have arrived at the same sentencing decision on the basis of the two other stated reasons for departure. 2 See Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987); Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). Moreover, while we do not approve the trial court's failure to articulate rea......
-
Abt v. State
...declined to address the issue of whether the legislature was unconstitutionally restricting appellate review. In Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104, 1105 (Fla.1987), and in Anthony v. State, 524 So.2d 655, 657, n. 3 (Fla.1988), the supreme court, in rather cryptic footnotes, stated its disinc......