Tillman v. State

Decision Date21 April 1988
Docket NumberNo. 68041,68041
Citation525 So.2d 862,13 Fla. L. Weekly 275
Parties13 Fla. L. Weekly 275 Randy Ashley TILLMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and Steven L. Bolotin, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

EHRLICH, Justice.

We have for review a sentencing guidelines decision, Tillman v. State, 477 So.2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), because of conflict with this Court's decision in Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and quash the decision below.

Tillman was arrested on the night of February 14, 1984, and charged with attempted sexual battery and simple battery. Because probable cause was found to be insufficient on the sexual battery charge, the state filed an amended information, on February 16, 1984, charging Tillman with burglary of a conveyance with an assault or battery (Count I), attempted kidnapping (Count II), and attempted robbery (Count III). After hearing the evidence at trial, the jury found the defendant not guilty on Counts II and III, but guilty (as to Count I) of the lesser included offense of attempted burglary of a conveyance with an assault or battery. The trial judge departed from the presumptive guidelines range of four and one-half to five and one-half years and increased the statutory maximum of fifteen years (section 775.082(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1985)) to thirty years, the enhanced statutory maximum allowed under the habitual offender statute (section 775.084(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1985)).

The trial judge set out five written reasons for departure in the "Order Aggravating the Sentence Beyond Guidelines Range" and specifically incorporated the written findings made in connection with the habitual offender proceeding. From the habitual offender order incorporated by reference, we have gleaned what appears to be four additional reasons for departure. The five reasons in the Order Aggravating the Sentence are:

1. The Court has found that this Defendant qualified as a habitual offender pursuant to Section 775.084, Florida Statutes. Based on this proceeding, the Court has specifically found that incarceration is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by this Defendant. The Court hereby specifically incorporates into this order the findings made pursuant to the habitual offender proceeding.

2. While the victim of Randy Ashley Tillman's crime did not suffer serious physical injury, she suffered obvious emotional shock and trauma as a result of the Defendant's actions. The court had personal opportunity in trial to observe this emotional damage to the victim. Such trauma is not taken into account in establishing presumptive ranges under sentencing guidelines.

3. The Defendant's past history shows a pattern of violent conduct which indicates a serious danger to society.

4. The Defendant has shown by his misdeeds that he is not amenable to rehabilitation.

5. The Defendant has exhibited a pattern of drug and alcohol abuse over such a long period of time that rehabilitation is unlikely.

The additional four reasons incorporated by reference from the habitual offender order are: 6) the defendant had a previous conviction for rape and aggravated assault; 7) the court believes that, given the facts of this incident and the facts of the prior rape conviction, there would be a much more serious charge but for the timely intervention of a third party; 8) the defendant has an extensive juvenile record; and 9) the rape and aggravated assault occurred approximately six months after the defendant's release from prison, and the instant offense was committed approximately four months after release from prison.

On appeal, the district court affirmed the departure sentence in a per curiam opinion citing Whitehead v. State, 467 So.2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), which was pending review by this Court and which we later quashed in Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863. Tillman argues that departure was improper because it was based upon his prior criminal record, which this Court found to be an invalid reason for departure in Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985), and upon speculation as to what might have happened, contrary to our opinion in White v. State, 403 So.2d 331 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 3571, 77 L.Ed.2d 1412 (1983).

A clear and convincing reason must be a valid reason, one which is an appropriate reason in the abstract, and must be supported by the facts of the particular case which are credible and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986); Keys v. State, 500 So.2d 134 (Fla.1986).

Reason one is not clear and convincing since habitual offender status is not a basis for departure under Whitehead.

Reason two, emotional trauma of the victim, may serve as a clear and convincing reason for departure where there is evidenced "a discernible physical manifestation resulting from the psychological trauma", State v. Rousseau, 509 So.2d 281, 284-85 (Fla.1987), or where there is evidence that the trauma is the result of "extraordinary circumstances which are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 20 d5 Maio d5 1988
    ...physical manifestation resulting from the trauma." State v. Rousseau, 509 So.2d 281, 184-185 (Fla. 1987). See also Tillman v. State, 525 So.2d 862 (Fla.1988); Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 692, 694 The record in this case reflects that the emotional trauma suffered by the victim constitutes trau......
  • Nixon v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 29 d4 Novembro d4 1990
    ...1 (emotional trauma) and 2 (escalating criminal conduct) to be clear and convincing under appropriate circumstances. In Tillman v. State, 525 So.2d 862, 864 (Fla.1988), we explained emotional trauma of the victim, may serve as a clear and convincing reason for departure where there is evide......
  • Louissaint v. State, 89-1803
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 20 d4 Dezembro d4 1990
    ...to rehabilitate the Defendant," still the sentencing offense (scored) necessarily was involved in his consideration. Tillman v. State, 525 So.2d 862 (Fla.1988) requires The state, although untimely, 1 filed a cross-appeal challenging the court's exclusion of the chemist's testimony. The sta......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 22 d3 Junho d3 1988
    ...physical manifestation as a result of the psychological trauma. See also State v. McCall, 524 So.2d 663 (Fla.1988); Tillman v. State, 525 So.2d 862 (Fla.1988); Hall v. State, 517 So.2d 692 (Fla.1988); Vanover v. State, 498 So.2d 899 (Fla.1986); Smith v. State, 525 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 19......
  • 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