McMillan v. State, 87-1933
| Decision Date | 16 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1933,87-1933 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2892,516 So.2d 1064 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2892 Larry McMILLAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Deborah Guller, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The defendant was convicted of grand theft. The maximum statutory penalty for this third degree felony is five years. § 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. He was sentenced as a habitual offender under section 775.084(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes, to ten years incarceration, the maximum period permitted under that statute. The guidelines scoresheet provided for a maximum sentence of thirty months. The trial court aggravated the defendant's sentence based on two grounds: (1) a continuing and persistent pattern of criminal activity demonstrating the futility of rehabilitation, and (2) the perpetration of the offenses shortly after the defendant's release from prison. These reasons are a valid basis for departure. See Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (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 recent conviction was for sexual battery. He twice previously has been convicted of burglary of a dwelling involving an attempted sexual battery.
Appellant contends that his sentence is invalid under Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). With the exception of the Fifth District, the appellate courts in this state have held that it is proper for the trial court to resort to the habitual offender statute to enhance a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum, where the sentence does not exceed the recommended guidelines range. See Condiles v. State, 512 So.2d 331 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); King v. State, 511 So.2d 1131 (Fla.4th DCA 1987); Hoefert v. State, 509 So.2d 1090 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); Smith v. Wainwright, 508 So.2d 768 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); Winters v. State, 500 So.2d 303 (Fla.1st DCA 1986). Here the sentence imposed exceeds both the statutory maximum penalty and the presumptive guidelines sentence.
The validity of such a sentence was recognized in Hall v. State, 511 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1st DCA 1987), and Holmes v. State, 502 So.2d 1302 (Fla.1st DCA 1987). In Hester v. State, 503 So.2d 1342 (Fla.1st DCA 1987), a similar sentence was affirmed. We agree with the conclusions in these cases and affirm the judgment and sentence. The other issues raised by appellant are also affirmed.
We certify the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salas v. State
...himself constitutes a valid reason for departure. See Robinson v. State, 530 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); McMillan v. State, 516 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 879 (Fla.1988); Allen v. State, 522 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 518 So.2d 1273 (Fla.1987)......
-
Robinson v. State, 87-0562
...504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987); Allen v. State, 522 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1273 (Fla.1987); McMillan v. State, 516 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 879 (Fla.1988); Leath v. State, 487 So.2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Pullens v. State, 516 So.2d 34 (Fl......
-
Inscho v. State
...maximums contained in section 775.082, Florida Statutes. See McGriff v. State, 517 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); McMillan v. State, 516 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Wooten v. State, 515 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Johnson v. State, 513 So.2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Priester v. State, 5......
-
Cave v. State
...valid reason here for departure, and that is the fact that we're talking about a recent release from DOC, the McMillan [v. State] case at 516 So.2d 1064 [ (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) ], where the DCA, Fourth DCA upheld that the defendant's release several days before the offenses in this case that ......