Williams v. State, No. BG-83

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtNIMMONS
Citation484 So.2d 71,11 Fla. L. Weekly 581
Docket NumberNo. BG-83
Decision Date05 March 1986
Parties11 Fla. L. Weekly 581 Jessie WILLIAMS, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Page 71

484 So.2d 71
11 Fla. L. Weekly 581
Jessie WILLIAMS, III, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. BG-83.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
March 5, 1986.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Henri Cawthon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

NIMMONS, Judge.

This is another sentencing guidelines appeal. 1

The defendant pled guilty to aggravated battery and burglary of a dwelling with assault. Since there was no trial and the parties have not included the presentence investigation report in the record on appeal, we have only the skeletal facts described by the prosecuting attorney at the time of the entry of the guilty pleas. It seems that the defendant broke into the female victim's home with the intent to assault her. After entering the home, he committed an aggravated battery upon her causing her to suffer great bodily harm. The state, in exchange for the guilty pleas, dropped a third count of robbery.

Page 72

The points which were tallied on the guidelines "scoresheet" were such that the allowable range under the guidelines was 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 years. The trial court exceeded the guidelines, imposing two 10-year concurrent terms.

The trial judge stated in writing the reasons for departure:

1. The Defendant as a juvenile was committed to the Department of HRS for the offense of Arson dated January 11, 1977. He was committed also in Case No. 76-466 for Arson and Burglary of an Occupied Dwelling, and again committed for Shoplifting dated August 18, 1978. At age eighteen (18) years, the Defendant was sentenced to Department of Corrections for three (3) years for Burglary of a Structure dated February 19, 1979 and paroled September 16, 1980. He was charged with violation of his parole on March 3, 1981 having only been out of prison for some six months. On July 10, 1981 the Defendant was again sentenced to the Department of Corrections on the offense of Attempted Burglary for five (5) years. On December 10, 1983 he was discharged as to that sentence and after only approximately ten (10) months committed the instant offense on October 6, 1984.

2. The continuing criminal behavior since the Defendant's age of sixteen years demonstrates his total disregard for the rehabilitative efforts of the past dispositions for his criminal behavior. There is no hope for rehabilitation of this individual.

3. The Defendant served approximately fourteen (14) months on his first three (3) year Department of Corrections sentence and some twenty-nine (29) months on the five (5) year Department of Corrections sentence....

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Jaggers v. State, No. BQ-95
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 23, 1987
    ...institutions. However, recently in Williams III v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987), the supreme court reviewed Williams III v. State, 484 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) in light of Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985). In Williams initially the trial court departed from the guidelines ......
  • Bailey v. State, No. BE-403
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 31, 1986
    ...the criminal justice system, which the court found to be more than a mere reference to the defendant's prior record, Williams v. State, 484 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA However, the following reasons for departure have been considered invalid by this court: The guidelines inadequately reflect the......
  • Ponder v. State, No. BR-492
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 8, 1988
    ...the subject offense only five months after his release from prison. This, in itself, is a valid reason for departure. Williams v. State, 484 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), affirmed, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987). Given the trial court's care, detail, and overriding concern with Ponder's prior rec......
  • Riggins v. State, No. BF-261
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 1986
    ...the defendant's past criminal conduct which does not focus primarily on the mere existence of prior convictions. See Williams v. State, 484 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA Accordingly, we find that the trial court's reasons number 1 and 3 are an improper basis for departure since they focus primaril......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Jaggers v. State, No. BQ-95
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 23, 1987
    ...institutions. However, recently in Williams III v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987), the supreme court reviewed Williams III v. State, 484 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) in light of Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985). In Williams initially the trial court departed from the guidelines ......
  • Bailey v. State, No. BE-403
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 31, 1986
    ...the criminal justice system, which the court found to be more than a mere reference to the defendant's prior record, Williams v. State, 484 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA However, the following reasons for departure have been considered invalid by this court: The guidelines inadequately reflect the......
  • Ponder v. State, No. BR-492
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 8, 1988
    ...the subject offense only five months after his release from prison. This, in itself, is a valid reason for departure. Williams v. State, 484 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), affirmed, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987). Given the trial court's care, detail, and overriding concern with Ponder's prior rec......
  • Riggins v. State, No. BF-261
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 1986
    ...the defendant's past criminal conduct which does not focus primarily on the mere existence of prior convictions. See Williams v. State, 484 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA Accordingly, we find that the trial court's reasons number 1 and 3 are an improper basis for departure since they focus primaril......
  • 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