McGouirk v. State
| Decision Date | 04 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 67472,67472 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 463 George Allen McGOUIRK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
In McGouirk v. State, 470 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the First District affirmed the defendant's sentence imposed in excess of the recommended guidelines sentence and the trial court's imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for separate offenses arising out of a single criminal episode. We find jurisdiction based on conflict, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and quash the opinion here under review.
In an effort to kill one member of a six-person family, petitioner McGouirk placed a homemade time bomb underneath the family's house trailer. The resulting explosion destroyed the intended victim's bedroom, and resulted in injury to another member of the family. A jury subsequently convicted petitioner of one count of attempted first-degree murder, two of attempted manslaughter, and one of placing a destructive device in violation of section 790.161, Florida Statutes (1983).
The trial court sentenced petitioner to fifteen years on the attempted murder conviction, including a three-year mandatory minimum under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1983); five years on each count of attempted manslaughter, to run concurrently with the first sentence; and a consecutive fifteen years for placing the destructive device, including a ten-year mandatory minimum imposed therefor under section 790.161(3). The trial court justified its imposition of the thirty-year sentence rather than the fifteen years recommended for the aggregate offense under the guidelines by noting the grotesque nature of the crime, the utter disregard for human life involved, and the lengthy premeditation preceding the act.
The district court subsequently affirmed both the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and the departure from the sentencing guidelines. Petitioner contends that the court erred in both respects. We agree.
First, we find the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimums arising from the single criminal act of placing the bomb improper. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983); State v. Ames, 467 So.2d 994 (Fla.1985). Because the convictions simply did not arise "from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places," Palmer, 438 So.2d at 4, the mandatory minimums must be imposed concurrently rather than consecutively.
We additionally find error in the district court's treatment of our decision in Palmer. The court found the decision inapplicable to sentencing under the guidelines. Reasoning that "the rationale behind [Palmer] was that, because eligibility for parole was proscribed for the period of the mandatory sentence, 'stacking' such sentences would result in parole ineligibility for a longer period than intended by the legislature," 470 So.2d at 32, and noting the inapplicability of parole to sentences imposed under the guidelines, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(b)(5), the court found no remaining bar to the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent mandatory minimums.
We recently held to the contrary, and affirmed the vitality of the Palmer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State
...factors which make up the components of the crime charged are not, in themselves, grounds to deviate from the guidelines. McGouirk v. State, 493 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1986); Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986); State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986). Therefore, the fact that a dangerous......
-
Jory v. State
...crimes duplicate elements of the "performance" crimes. Thus they cannot provide a basis for a departure sentence. See McGouirk v. State, 493 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1986); State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986); 2. Facts of the Case Under the "facts of the case" the trial court stated: The fac......
-
Junco v. State
...to support this position. Those cases that the appellants rely on, however, are distinguishable from the instant case. In McGouirk v. State, 493 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1986), the defendant, who contended that Palmer applied requiring a concurrent sentence, committed one act of placing a time bomb ......
-
Livingston v. State, 68323
...State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986). An utter disregard for human life (reason 5) is not a valid reason to depart. McGouirk v. State, 493 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1986). On the other hand, several of the reasons for departing in this case are valid: contemporaneous conviction of an unscored ......