Scott v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 69234,69234 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 290,508 So.2d 335 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 290 Michael Anthony SCOTT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We have for review Scott v. State, 492 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), a sentencing guideline decision which the First District Court of Appeal certified as being in conflict with Wilson v. State, 490 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), on the question of whether a trial court's written finding that a recommended guidelines sentence "is insufficient for retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and for the safety of the public," 492 So.2d at 449, is a clear and convincing reason for departure. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and approve in part and disapprove in part the decision below.
The decision under review involves an appeal of a departure sentence imposed after remand for resentencing. Scott was convicted of armed robbery and armed burglary. The trial court originally departed from the recommended guidelines sentence, imposing concurrent terms of twenty-five years. The trial court gave eight written reasons for departure. In the first appeal, Scott v. State, 469 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the district court upheld two of the reasons given for departure but because Scott's presumptive guidelines sentence had been improperly computed, the district court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
On resentencing, the trial court again departed, imposing concurrent twenty-year sentences. The trial court gave three reasons for departure (the first two of which had been upheld in the first appeal):
1. Defendant created an extreme risk to the safety of many citizens in his attempt to escape apprehension following commission of the crime.
2. The sentencing guidelines recommendation of 5 1/2 to 7 years is insufficient for retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and for the safety of the public.
3. Defendant's criminal history indicates that a prison term of 5 1/2 to 7 years is inadequate punishment for this defendant.
In his appeal of the resentencing departure, Scott challenged only the third reason for departure. 1 The district court properly found this reason clearly invalid under our decision in Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985). The district court went on to note that "there is now a conflict among the district courts over the validity of the second ground; and, in light of [Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986) ], we seriously question whether this ground remains valid." 492 So.2d at 449 (footnotes omitted). However, it nevertheless chose not to recede from its prior ruling on this issue but certified the apparent conflict with Wilson.
In a footnote, the district court further noted that "[t]he second reason in the case sub judice represents little more than the trial court's disagreement with the recommended sentence," Id. at 449 n. 2., which was found to be an improper reason for departure in Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (hereinafter Samuel Williams ), and Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986). Scott urges us to accept this characterization of reason two. The state concedes that in cases such as Samuel Williams and Scurry, where there are no other valid reasons for departure, such a statement is nothing more than an expression of judicial dissatisfaction with a recommended guidelines sentence. It argues, however, that in a case such as this, where there is at least one valid reason for departure, a statement that the recommended guidelines sentence is insufficient should be looked upon as "merely qualifying" the valid reason or reasons for departure.
We have recently employed logic similar to that urged by the state in Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987) (hereinafter Jessie Williams ). In that case the departure order, which set forth at least three clear and convincing reasons, also contained the statement that "[t]o impose the suggested sentence under sentencing guidelines would make a mockery of this court's sentencing goal." Id. at 393. Relying on our prior decision in Samuel Williams, Jessie Williams challenged this statement as being nothing more than the trial judge's expression of his general disagreement with the recommended guidelines sentence. We rejected this argument and found the statement to be an expression of his conclusion that "based upon the reasons given in this case the court's departure was justified." Id. at 394.
With our prior decisions in mind, we expressly hold that a trial court's written finding that a recommended guidelines sentence is insufficient may never serve as a reason...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salas v. State
...court's written conclusion that the departure is necessary based on the valid reasons given in the departure order." See Scott v. State, 508 So.2d 335 (Fla.1987); State v. Devine, 512 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 519 So.2d 988 (Fla.1987). Because we hold that all of the remaini......
- Thomas v. Thomas
-
Abt v. State
...the additional reasons. With regard to the last reason, that the sentence is insufficient for rehabilitation or deterrence, Scott v. State, 508 So.2d 335 (Fla.1987), held that a trial court's written finding that a recommended guidelines sentence is insufficient may never serve as a reason ......
-
Livingston v. State, 68323
...A generalized disagreement with the sufficiency of a recommended sentence is an invalid reason for departure. Scott v. State, 508 So.2d 335 (Fla.1987). Reasons 6 and 7, however, embodying the court's conclusions regarding the failed past rehabilitation and the improbability of future rehabi......