Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 07 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 70288,70288 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 28 Eddie Mae HALL and Frank Hall, Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, and David P. Gauldin, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioners.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Kurt L. Barch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
This is a petition for review predicated upon the following question certified as one of great public importance in Hall v. State, 503 So.2d 951, 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987):
CAN PERMANENT SCARRING AND DISFIGUREMENT OF THE VICTIM IN AN AGGRAVATED CHILD ABUSE CASE BE RELIED UPON FOR UPWARD DEPARTURE WHERE VICTIM INJURY HAS BEEN SCORED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT ON THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES SCORESHEET?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Petitioners, husband and wife, each pled nolo contendere to two counts of aggravated child abuse of their two children. The evidence before the trial judge at sentencing may be summarized in the following manner.
As soon as their children reached the age of one year, petitioners began to beat them for the purpose of toilet training. They would beat them every time the children would urinate without telling their parents. This would occur four or five times a day and would entail two to six beatings with a belt. At the time of petitioners' arrest their daughter was six years old and their son was four years old. There were numerous scars over the bodies of both victims, and in addition, both children bore fresh wounds. The scar tissue on the son's buttocks was at least an inch thick. The daughter had more than fifty marks on her body half an inch to two inches long, and most of these were loop marks and strap marks.
A physician testified that both children were severely malnourished. The boy's weight was normal for that of a child of only eighteen months, and the daughter's weight was similar to what would be expected for a two to three year old child. The son's behavior was quite abnormal for a child his age. He made no intelligible sounds, and his eating behavior was extremely abnormal. The doctor said that the daughter's behavior was more abnormal than that of her brother. Her speech was so abnormal that he felt that she might be psychotic. The doctor concluded that he had "never seen children with as many or as severe scars on their bodies as these kids, including the children I've seen that have died."
The range of the sentencing guidelines was from four and one-half to five and one-half years for each of the petitioners. However, for each petitioner the court imposed a fifteen-year sentence on the first count and a five-year consecutive sentence on the second count followed by ten years of probation. The sentencing order recited the following reasons for departure:
1) Emotional trauma suffered by the victims has been made known to the Court and fear and emotional distress resulting from and as a consequence of the criminal acts of the Defendants. The foregoing reason is not encompassed within the scoring factors to be considered by the Court in calculating the range of sentence under the sentencing guidelines.
2) Premeditated repetitive and long-lasting beatings of their children beginning at approximately age one and continuing for three years for the younger victim and five years for the older victim and resulting in the severe, permanent scarring and disfigurement of their tiny bodies.
3) Aggravated child abuse was committed against these young victims by their natural parents, persons in a special position of trust within the family unit.
The district court of appeal affirmed the judgments and sentences and sustained all three reasons as proper bases for departure. As part of our review, we will address the validity of each of these reasons.
In considering the circumstances under which psychological or emotional trauma could be a proper basis for departure, this Court recently stated:
When the victim's trauma results from extraordinary circumstances clearly not inherent in the crime charged or when the victim has a discernible physical manifestation resulting from the trauma, it may constitute a clear and convincing reason for departure. We point out, however, that almost all victims of a crime will feel some type of trauma; this type of trauma which usually and ordinarily results from being a victim of a crime is inherent in the crime and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wemett v. State
...aggravating ... the sentence." Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11). See, e.g., State v. McCall, 524 So.2d 663, 665 (Fla.1988); Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 692, 694-95 (Fla.1988); Vanover v. State, 498 So.2d 899, 900-01 (Fla.1986). It necessarily follows that a departure cannot be based on factors commo......
-
Williams v. State, 87-1599
...nature of the defendant's conduct in the perpetration of the offense. State v. McCall, 524 So.2d 663, 665 (Fla.1988); Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 692 (Fla.1988); McFadden v. State, 529 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Washington v. State, The record in this case reflects that appellant's conduct......
-
Small v. State, 94-1342
...of the victim, will support an upward departure sentence. See, e.g., Wemett v. State, 567 So.2d 882 (Fla.1990); Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 692 (Fla.1988); Davis v. State, 517 So.2d 670 (Fla.1987); Clifton v. State, 608 So.2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Robinson v. State, 589 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 4th......
-
Robinson v. State, 87-0562
...beyond a reasonable doubt, that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence on the basis of the valid reason. See Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 692 (Fla.1988); Casteel v. State, 498 So.2d 1249 (Fla.1986); Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985); Nodal v. State, 524 So.2d 476 (Fla. ......