McKinney v. State, 89-315
| Decision Date | 06 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-315,89-315 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D350 Clinton McKINNEY, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.
Clinton McKinney appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. We affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing within the recommended guidelines. The state has properly conceded that the record does not support a finding of an escalating pattern of criminal conduct. Furthermore, contrary to the state's position, the record does not support the trial court's finding that defendant's "recent release from prison" justifies a departure from the sentencing guidelines. The timing of offenses "in relation to prior offenses and release from incarceration or supervision are aspects of a defendant's prior criminal history" and may form the basis for a departure sentence. Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392, 393 (Fla.1987). However, temporal proximity supports such a departure only when there is a showing that "the crimes committed demonstrate a defendant's involvement in a continuing and persistent pattern of criminal activity as evidenced by the timing of each offense in relation to prior offenses and the release from incarceration." State v. Jones, 530 So.2d 53, 56 (Fla.1988). Here, defendant's release from prison approximately six months before committing the offense for which he was sentenced does not establish the persistent pattern required by Jones.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lipscomb v. State, 89-213
...a pattern--escalating or persistent. 7 The courts in Frederick v. State, 556 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) and McKinney v. State, 559 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) hold that two offenses do not a pattern make. We find however that just as two points can establish a line and just as two felon......
-
Davis v. State
...and reverse the possession offense in this case. 1 Neither Roberts v. State, 557 So.2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) nor McKinney v. State, 559 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) are applicable to this case because those offenses occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment to section 775.021(......
-
Lago v. State
...701 (Fla.1989); Jones v. State, 553 So.2d 702 (Fla.1989); Butler v. State, 545 So.2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). But see McKinney v. State, 559 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Chanquet v. State, 570 So.2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The recent decision in Smith v. State, 570 So.2d 1315 (Fla.1991), ha......
-
Brown v. State, 88-02449
...However, the First District in Frederick v. State, 556 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) and the Third District in McKinney v. State, 559 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) have held that two offenses do not establish a pattern of persistent and continuing criminal activity. Contra Lipscomb v. State,......