Williams v. State, No. 67369
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | BARKETT; McDONALD; OVERTON; OVERTON |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1,500 So.2d 501 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1 Barry Allan WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 67369 |
| Decision Date | 24 December 1986 |
Page 501
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Robert C. Hill, Fort Myers, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Krauss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review Williams v. State, 471 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), because of direct and express conflict with Monti v. State, 480 So.2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash the decision below and remand for resentencing.
Barry Allan Williams was charged with burglary of a dwelling and two counts of grand theft. The crimes were committed in January 1984. He pled guilty to the burglary charge, to one of the grand theft charges, and to a charge of petit theft in connection with the second grand theft charge under an agreement with the state.
At the plea hearing, the trial judge informed Williams that he would be sentenced within the guidelines under three conditions: 1) that his criminal record was
Page 502
what he said it was; 2) that he reappear for sentencing on July 20, 1984; and 3) that he refrain from engaging in any further criminal activity. Williams agreed to these three conditions and was released on his own recognizance. He failed to appear for sentencing on July 20, and an arrest warrant was issued. Williams was found in Texas and returned to Florida on October 10, 1984.A sentencing hearing was held on November 13, 1984. Under the guidelines, Williams' recommended sentence was any nonstate prison sanction. The judge adjudicated Williams guilty and sentenced him outside the guidelines to serve concurrent terms of fifteen years on the burglary charge, five years on the grand theft charge, and sixty days on the petit theft charge. The district court upheld the trial court's departure from the guidelines.
Under section 921.001(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11), a trial judge is obligated to sentence within the guidelines unless he gives clear and convincing reasons for departure. In the sentencing order in this case, the reason given for departure was that "... DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR FOR SENTENCING ON JULY 20, 1984." Accordingly, the issue presented is whether a defendant's failure to appear for sentencing constitutes a clear and convincing reason for departure from the guidelines.
Although the decision under review approves departure for this reason, the Fifth District in Monti expresses an opposing view. In Monti, the appellate court reversed a departure sentence based on the defendant's failure to appear at sentencing, noting that it is impermissible to deviate from the guidelines based upon a crime for which the defendant has not been convicted. See Fla.R.Crim.P...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maddox v. State, No. SC92805
...court may not impose a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum. See King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136, 1140 (Fla. 1996); Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501, 503 With the exception of the Fifth District, the district courts are in accord that this type of patent and serious sentencing error, whic......
-
Felts v. State, BJ-413
...515 So.2d 214 (Fla.1987). 6 State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986); Hankey v. State, 485 So.2d 827 (Fla.1986). 7 Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501 (Fla.1986). See also State v. Tyner, 506 So.2d 405 (Fla.1987); Cowan v. State, 505 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Sabb v. State, 479 So.2d 8......
-
Lipscomb v. State, 89-213
...], and Jones, providing the trial court does not rest its conclusion preponderantly on unconvicted conduct. Williams II [v. State, 500 So.2d 501 (Fla.1986) Simpson at 510. From the advance sheets now available to us it appears that timing is an appropriate reason for departure in non-violat......
-
Bates v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 13–11882.
...court ruled, “[a] defendant cannot by agreement confer on the court the authority to impose an illegal sentence.” Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501, 503 (Fla.1986). At the time appellant committed this murder, the Legislature had not established life without the possibility of parole as puni......
-
Maddox v. State, No. SC92805
...court may not impose a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum. See King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136, 1140 (Fla. 1996); Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501, 503 With the exception of the Fifth District, the district courts are in accord that this type of patent and serious sentencing error, whic......
-
Felts v. State, BJ-413
...515 So.2d 214 (Fla.1987). 6 State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986); Hankey v. State, 485 So.2d 827 (Fla.1986). 7 Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501 (Fla.1986). See also State v. Tyner, 506 So.2d 405 (Fla.1987); Cowan v. State, 505 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Sabb v. State, 479 So.2d 8......
-
Lipscomb v. State, 89-213
...], and Jones, providing the trial court does not rest its conclusion preponderantly on unconvicted conduct. Williams II [v. State, 500 So.2d 501 (Fla.1986) Simpson at 510. From the advance sheets now available to us it appears that timing is an appropriate reason for departure in non-violat......
-
Bates v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 13–11882.
...court ruled, “[a] defendant cannot by agreement confer on the court the authority to impose an illegal sentence.” Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501, 503 (Fla.1986). At the time appellant committed this murder, the Legislature had not established life without the possibility of parole as puni......