State v. Baker, BI-67
| Decision Date | 16 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BI-67,BI-67 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2632 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Oscar BAKER, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Henri C. Cawthon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and Kathleen Stover, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
The State appeals from the sentence imposed on Oscar Baker, Jr., for escape and asserts that the trial court erred in under-departing from the guidelines. We agree and reverse. Baker escaped from a work release center and was apprehended shortly thereafter. The sentencing guidelines recommendation for escape was 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 years incarceration. The trial court sentenced Baker to 24 months incarceration, less than half of the range recommended by the guidelines. The trial court supplied the following written reasons for its departure:
(1) Based on the trial court's experience the guidelines seemed excessive for a walk away escape from a work release program,
(2) there was no violence or danger to anyone during the escape.
We find that neither of the trial court's statements regarding departure constitutes a clear and convincing reason warranting mitigation of the sentence.
As to the first reason, "based on the judge's prior experience", though the guidelines aren't meant to usurp all of the judge's discretion, it is improper to depart based on the trial court's perception that the recommended sentence under the guidelines is not commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. This would undermine the guidelines' goal of establishing uniformity in sentencing. Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986).
In the instant case the trial judge implied that defendant's act of escape was not a serious one, warranting 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 years incarceration. In State v. Davis, 464 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985), the trial court expressed that defendant's attempted burglary of a car was too insignificant to warrant a year in jail and would warrant at most 90 days in jail. The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the de minimis nature of the crime was an insufficient basis for deviation from the guidelines. When faced with a judge's similar dissatisfaction with a guidelines recommended sentence, the Florida Supreme Court stated, "In effect this reason reflects a trial judge's disagreement with the sentencing guidelines commission and is not a sufficient reason for departure." Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25, 29 (Fla.1986).
The trial court's second reason for departure, lack of violence or injury is also invalid. In State v. Caride, 473 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the Third District Court held that the trial court's reason...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thompkins
...policy or feels that the lowest permissible sentence is not commensurate with the crime.” (citation omitted)); Ayers;State v. Baker, 498 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In instances like this where a trial court's perception of justice leads it to conclude that leniency is appropriate, and ......
-
Fryson v. State, BO-43
...undermine the guidelines' goal of establishing uniformity in sentencing. Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986); State v. Baker, 498 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Since only two of the six reasons are arguably valid, ordinarily under Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1985), we......
-
State v. Devine, 4-86-1978
...of the crime committed. See Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986); Scurry v. State, 489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986); State v. Baker, 498 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Whitfield v. State, 490 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Caride, 473 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); State v. Davis,......
-
State v. Bowman, 1D12–3227.
...support lack of proportionality, not a valid mitigator); State v. Thompkins, 113 So.3d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); see also State v. Baker, 498 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). “A trial court may not ignore the criminal sentencing policy established by the legislature simply because that policy ......