State v. Tyner

• Decision Date: 07 May 1987
• Docket Number: No. 69192,69192
• Citation: State v. Tyner, 506 So.2d 405, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 220 (Fla. 1987)
• Parties: 12 Fla. L. Weekly 220 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Ronald Eugene TYNER, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 405

506 So.2d 405

12 Fla. L. Weekly 220

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v.Ronald Eugene TYNER, Respondent.

No. 69192.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 7, 1987.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Gary O. Welch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for petitioner.

Dennis J. Rehak, Fort Myers, for respondent.

BARKETT, Justice.

We have for review Tyner v. State, 491 So.2d 1228(Fla. 2d DCA1986), in which the district court certified the following as a question of great public importance:

Is the court permitted to consider any factors relating to the instant offense as a basis for departure from the guidelines if such factors would have subjected the defendant to prosecution for a crime of which he has not been convicted?

Id. at 1230.We have jurisdiction, art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const., and answer the certified question in the negative.

Tyner was charged by indictment with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed burglary.Tyner filed a motion to dismiss the two murder counts pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4).¹For purposes of the motion to dismiss, the parties stipulated to the following facts: Tyner conspired to commit a burglary with Michael Hall.Tyner was present when Hall borrowed a gun.Tyner was told that no one would be present in the home at the time of the burglary.Tyner drove Hall to the scene of the burglary, dropped him off, and immediately drove over a half mile away where he waited for Hall to complete the burglary.Hall alone entered the house and killed the two people inside.

The trial court granted Tyner's motion to dismiss the murder counts.Tyner was subsequently found guilty of the remaining charge of armed burglary.The trial court exceeded the guidelines range because:

Past record indicates that Defendant is a professional criminal who will prey upon society whenever he is at liberty.Additionally as a direct result of the armed burglary two persons were killed.

On appeal, the Second District reversed the departure sentence, finding both reasons invalid.²In rejecting the second reason advanced for the departure, the Second District concluded that even though the murders occurred as a direct result of the burglary, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11) precludes consideration of this factor as an adequate justification for departure because Tyner had not been found guilty of those crimes.

We concur with the district court's reasoning.Rule 3.701(d)(11) limits a judge's authority to aggravate or mitigate sentences and explicitly addresses the issue before us.It states:

Reasons for deviating from the guidelines shall not include factors relating to prior arrests without conviction.Reasons for deviating from the guidelines shall not include factors relating to the instant offenses for which convictions have not been obtained.

This language is plain.Judges may consider only that conduct of the defendant relating to an element of the offense for which he has been convicted.To hold otherwise would effectively circumvent the basic requirement of obtaining a conviction before meting out punishment.

In this case, consideration of the murders in sentencing for the armed burglary would result in an egregious violation of due process because the defendant has already been acquitted of the murders.It is well settled that dismissal of a criminal charge based on stipulated facts reflects a conclusion by...