Johnson v. State, AW-172
| Decision Date | 21 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. AW-172,AW-172 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 18 Herman JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Thomas H. Bateman, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant seeks review of a sentence imposed, after a guilty plea, for the offense of robbery with a firearm. Although appellant has raised several issues on appeal, we find the only point of reversible error to be the court's failure to provide a written statement of reasons for departing from the presumptive guideline sentence established pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701. For this limited reason we therefore vacate the sentence imposed.
Appellant pled guilty to a charge of robbery with a firearm for a 1982 offense and expressly elected to be sentenced pursuant to the provisions of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701. The application of Rule 3.701 in these circumstances requires only that appellant "affirmatively selects" to be sentenced pursuant to the rule, see § 921.001(4)(a), Florida Statutes, and such affirmative selection does not require any advisement by the court as to parole ineligibility. See Jones v. State, 459 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Coates v. State, 458 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Moore v. State, 455 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
In imposing a sentence outside the presumptive guideline range the court noted appellant's "utter disregard for the property rights [and] welfare and safety" of others. The court further explained that:
... [T]his robbery was out of the ordinary in that three people, not including yourself and co-defendants, were placed in extreme danger .... The amount of money that was taken was substantial.... [Y]ou not only placed the lives of yourself and your co-defendant in danger but that of innocent parties ....
Such conduct was a sufficient reason for departure from the presumptive guideline sentence, and was properly considered, in accordance with Rule 3.701(b)(3), as "circumstances surrounding the offense." See Smith v. State, 454 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Garcia v. State, 454 So.2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see also Murphy v. State, 459 So.2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Appellant asserts that the extent of the departure from the presumptive guideline sentence in the present case does not correspond with the severity of the stated reasons for departure. However, the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum and the court's departure from the presumptive guideline sentence is permissibly predicated upon the circumstances of appellant's offense. No further limitation of the trial court's sentencing discretion is imposed by either statute or rule, and we therefore decline to otherwise review the extent of a permissible departure from the presumptive guideline sentence. Accord, Whitlock v. State, 458 So.2d 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Hanky v. State, 458 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); cf., Swain v. State, 455 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Although the court did indicate a permissible basis for departing from the presumptive guideline sentence, such reasons were stated orally and no separate written explanation was provided. A written statement is expressly required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11). In Jackson v State, 454 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glover v. State
...the rule requires a written contemporaneous statement rather than an oral statement to be transcribed later. Accord : Johnson v. State, 462 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Roux v. State, 455 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA We therefore REVERSE and REMAND for resentencing, with the direction that any ......
-
Hall v. State
...aggravate for the reason that there were several persons in the immediate area whose safety was put at risk. In Johnson v. State, 462 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), approved in part on other grounds, disapproved in part on other grounds, 486 So.2d 536 (Fla.1986), relied on by the trial judge......
-
Walker v. State, 86-1487
...economic terms, appears to be a valid basis to depart upwards. Seastrand v. State, 474 So.2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Johnson v. State, 462 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), approved in part, disapproved in part, 486 So.2d 536 (Fla.1986) (valid departure where multiple victims and large amounts......
-
Webster v. State, BK-77
...that the defendant evinced a flagrant disregard for the safety of others. Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986); Johnson v. State, 462 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The second reason for departure is not clear and convincing. Oral statements made by the judge at sentencing will not satis......