Myrick v. State, s. 85-292
| Citation | 497 So.2d 728,11 Fla. L. Weekly 2386 |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | 85-293 and 85-294,Nos. 85-292,s. 85-292 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2386 Bobby MYRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
In these consolidated sentencing guidelines cases, the appellant, Bobby Myrick, appeals the sentences imposed by the trial court. We find that the trial court's written reasons for departing from the guidelines when sentencing the appellant include both permissible and impermissible reasons, and we, therefore, reverse and remand for resentencing.
The underlying offenses in this case are one count of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and two counts of uttering a forged instrument. When appellant's probation for these offenses was revoked in 1984, he elected guideline sentencing. The trial court prepared a written statement containing reasons for departure and sentenced the appellant to serve three consecutive five-year terms in the state prison. The trial court imposed these sentences without first preparing a guidelines scoresheet. Upon appeal of that sentencing, the case was reversed and remanded for preparation of a guidelines scoresheet followed by resentencing. See Myrick v. State, 461 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
The sentencing guidelines scoresheet which was ultimately prepared reflected a sentence range of community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration. With the one cell enhancement allowed for violation of probation, the reflected range was two-and-one-half to three-and-one-half years of incarceration. At the resentencing hearing, however, the trial court again departed from the guidelines and once again sentenced appellant to serve three consecutive five-year sentences. The same written reasons for departure that were used in the original sentencing were used at appellant's resentencing.
The written statement reflected that the trial judge based his decision to sentence the appellant outside the sentencing guidelines on the appellant's violation of his probation as well as on appellant's criminal history. Appellant's violation of probation, however, is an invalid reason to enhance appellant's sentence more than the one cell permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14). See Wigfals v. State, 480 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Furthermore, appellant's criminal history included both valid and invalid reasons for departure. For instance,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beale v. American National Lawyers Insurance Reciprocal
......v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 41 F.3d 429 (9th Cir.1994) ; Mead Reinsurance v. Granite State Insurance Co., 873 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir.1988) ; Continental Cas. Co. v. Wendt, 205 F.3d 1258 (11th ......
-
Patten v. State, 86-2928
...not a valid ground to depart beyond the one cell bump permitted under the guidelines. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14); Myrick v. State, 497 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We perceive no inconsistency with our interpretation of Shull had the trial court on resentencing merely enhanced Patten's......
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Chong, Civ. A. No. 91-2141-0.
...... Docking ("Docking") is a Kansas attorney licensed to practice before the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas and the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Docking was admitted to ......
-
Morganti v. State, 4-86-2619
...Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). The defendant's juvenile record may be a valid reason for departure. Myrick v. State, 497 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Riddle v. State, 488 So.2d 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). However, the state has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the sente......