Harmon v. State
| Decision Date | 12 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. BN-99,BN-99 |
| Citation | 506 So.2d 500,12 Fla. L. Weekly 1214 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1214 Ira Joe HARMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
J. Craig Williams of Williams and Stapp, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant.
John M. Koenig, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Harmon appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of robbery with a firearm and two counts of aggravated assault. He raises numerous issues on appeal concerning both his convictions and the sentences imposed; however, we find no error with regard to the convictions, and reverse and remand for resentencing in only two respects.
In sentencing Harmon for the robberies (Counts I and II) the trial court departed from the recommended guidelines sentence of 12 to 17 years incarceration and imposed sentences of 40 and 30 years respectively, with a concurrent 3 year mandatory minimum on each. As reasons for departure the court cited Harmon's status as a habitual offender, the fact that the robbery victims were of "advanced age" (52 and 67 years old), and the fact that the offenses had been committed shortly after Harmon had been released on parole for a prior robbery conviction. Harmon's status as a habitual offender is not a valid reason for departure. Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1987). Nor is the mere fact that the male victims were 52 and 67 years old a valid reason for departure under Von Carter v. State, 468 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA) rev'd. on other grounds 478 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1985). See also Grant v. State, 12 FLW 236 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan 7, 1987); Hadley v. State, 488 So.2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The final reason refers to the timing of the instant offenses and is a valid reason for departure. Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987); Swain v. State, 455 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Therefore, we remand for resentencing of the two robbery convictions under Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).
Harmon also urges that the court's imposition of consecutive 3 year mandatory minimums on the assault counts (Counts III and IV) was improper. We agree. The mandatory minimums of Counts III and IV should be served concurrently to each other and concurrently with the mandatory minimums of Counts I and II. Since the events comprising the offenses arose out of one continuous criminal episode, the mandatory minimums of all four counts must be served concurrent to one another. Palmer v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harmon v. State, 88-3183
...Etlinger v. State, 538 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). REVERSED AND REMANDED. ERVIN and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. 1 Harmon v. State, 506 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (Harmon I); Harmon v. State, 531 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (Harmon II).2 That ground recited: "The Defendant committed this......
-
McMillan v. State, 87-1933
...(Fla.1987); Brockington v. State, 506 So.2d 495 (Fla.5th DCA 1987); Shelton v. State, 510 So.2d 1068 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); Harmon v. State, 506 So.2d 500 (Fla.1st DCA 1987). The crime in this instance occurred shortly after the defendant's release from his latest commitment to prison. His most......
-
Johnson v. State, 86-914
...of alcohol and his befriending the defendant shortly before his death is an improper reason for departure. See Harmon v. State, 506 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (fact that robbery victims, males, were 57 and 62 years old was not a valid reason for departure); Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1......
-
Cromer v. State
...male robbery victims were not of such "advanced age" that their age alone was a clear and convincing reason to depart. Harmon v. State, 506 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In contrast, the fact that a female robbery victim was 86 years old and lived alone has been held a clear and convincing......