Ree v. State, No. 4-86-0650

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; HERSEY; HERSEY
Citation12 Fla. L. Weekly 2252,512 So.2d 1085
Docket NumberNo. 4-86-0650
Decision Date16 September 1987
Parties12 Fla. L. Weekly 2252 James REE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Page 1085

512 So.2d 1085
12 Fla. L. Weekly 2252
James REE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4-86-0650.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District.
Sept. 16, 1987.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1987.

Page 1086

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Amy L. Diem, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case concerns the trial court's departure from the sentencing guidelines.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to burglary, possession of burglary tools and criminal mischief. Adjudication was withheld and he was placed on two years' probation. Eight months later, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed, charging appellant with violating his probation by committing sexual batteries upon two female children.

A probation revocation hearing was held, after which the trial court revoked appellant's probation, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment for burglary, five years' imprisonment for possession of burglary tools, and six months' imprisonment for criminal mischief, the sentences to run consecutively. The sentence was a six-cell departure from the sentencing guidelines. Five days after the sentencing hearing the trial judge signed a written order stating four reasons for his departure from the guidelines.

On appeal, appellant contends that all four reasons for departure were invalid. We conclude that the first reason (psychological and emotional trauma of the sexual battery victims) was valid, as constituting consideration of the circumstances forming the basis for the probation revocation. See Isgette v. State, 494 So.2d 534 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Rodriguez v. State, 464 So.2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The second reason (commission of crimes within eight months of being placed on two years' probation) is also valid. See Spivey v. State, 481 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The state concedes, however, that the third reason was invalid; and although the fourth reason (trend toward criminality of increasing severity), could have been valid, Ballard v. State, 501 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 488 So.2d 67 (Fla.1986), it was not sufficiently supported by the evidence. Since the state has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the two invalid reasons for departure would not have affected the sentence, we must reverse...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Martin v. State, No. 89-2518
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 27, 1992
    ...The requirement that the written order be rendered contemporaneously with the sentencing hearing is now well settled. Ree v. State, 512 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), quashed but rule adopted, 565 So.2d 1329, 1331 (Fla.1990). The general rule is that where a departure sentence is reversed ......
  • State v. Williams, No. 86-3056
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 24, 1987
    ...providing a contemporaneous written statement of the reasons therefore at the time each sentence was pronounced." Ree v. State, 512 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), citing State v. Oden, 478 So.2d 51 (Fla.1985), appeal after remand, 502 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (emphasis supplied); ......
  • Williams v. State, No. 87-02878
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 27, 1990
    ...of a departure sentence based on two or more violations of probation, it is clear from reading the opinion, together with Ree v. State, 512 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), that the question of a departure sentence based upon multiple violations of probation was not presented or ruled upon b......
  • Novicki v. State, No. 90-0204
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 9, 1992
    ...in accordance with the supreme court's opinion in Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990) and this court's opinions in Ree v. State, 512 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) and Pittman v. State, 572 So.2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Immediately after our initial opinion issued, the supreme court mod......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Martin v. State, No. 89-2518
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 27, 1992
    ...The requirement that the written order be rendered contemporaneously with the sentencing hearing is now well settled. Ree v. State, 512 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), quashed but rule adopted, 565 So.2d 1329, 1331 (Fla.1990). The general rule is that where a departure sentence is reversed ......
  • State v. Williams, No. 86-3056
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 24, 1987
    ...providing a contemporaneous written statement of the reasons therefore at the time each sentence was pronounced." Ree v. State, 512 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), citing State v. Oden, 478 So.2d 51 (Fla.1985), appeal after remand, 502 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (emphasis supplied); ......
  • Williams v. State, No. 87-02878
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 27, 1990
    ...of a departure sentence based on two or more violations of probation, it is clear from reading the opinion, together with Ree v. State, 512 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), that the question of a departure sentence based upon multiple violations of probation was not presented or ruled upon b......
  • Ree v. State, No. 71424
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 19, 1990
    ...we withdraw our prior opinion in this case and substitute the following as the opinion of the Court. We have for review Ree v. State, 512 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), based on express and direct conflict with Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT