Williams v. State

Decision Date19 March 1987
Docket NumberNo. 68505,68505
Citation12 Fla. L. Weekly 132,504 So.2d 392
Parties12 Fla. L. Weekly 132 Jessie WILLIAMS, III, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Henri C. Cawthon, Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

EHRLICH, Justice.

We have for review a sentencing guidelines decision, Williams v. State, 484 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), because of apparent conflict with this Court's decision in Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution and approve the decision below.

Williams pled guilty to aggravated battery and burglary of a dwelling with an assault. The trial judge departed from the presumptive guidelines range of four and one-half to five and one-half years, imposing two ten-year concurrent terms. The trial judge gave the following written 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 approximatley 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. Under sentencing guidelines for standing convicted of Burglary of a Dwelling with Intent to Commit an Assault and Aggravated Battery, this Defendant would receive a recommended sentence of four and one-half (4 1/2) to five and one-half years (5 1/2) which with gain time might allow him to serve less time on these serious violations than he served on his last period of incarceration. This should not be the intent of a sentence and the punishment for his criminal conduct in the present cases should be substantially greater to protect society and deter him in future criminal activities.

4. To impose the suggested sentence under sentencing guidelines would make a mockery of this court's sentencing goal.

5. The frequency of the Defendant's criminal conduct and especially in view of the short duration from his previous periods of incarceration with the Department of Corrections demonstrates a need for punishment greater than that provided by Rule 3.701, Fla.R.Crim.P.

On appeal, the district court affirmed the departure sentence, rejecting Williams argument that the trial judge's departure was based solely upon his prior criminal record, contrary to this Court's decision in Hendrix. The district court correctly noted that under this Court's decision in Weems v. State, 469 So.2d 128 (Fla.1985), Williams' juvenile record constituted a clear and convincing reason for departure. *

We also agree with the district court that the trial court's description...

To continue reading

Request your trial
102 cases
  • Lipscomb v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 31 Enero 1991
    ...egregious. Timing was considered sufficiently egregious to warrant departure. The same unanimous court told us in Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987), receded from Gibson v. State, 553 So.2d 701 (Fla.1989) that it was appropriate to base a departure from the guideline range when sen......
  • Robinson v. State, 87-0562
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 14 Septiembre 1988
    ...ground is a valid reason to depart because it was not previously factored into the presumptive sentence. See, e.g., (Jessie) Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987); Allen v. State, 522 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1273 (Fla.1987); McMillan v. State, 516 So.2d 1064 (......
  • Morgan v. State, 88-1196
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 17 Octubre 1989
    ...guidelines. An extensive record of juvenile adjudications may provide sufficient reason for departure from the guidelines, Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987); Musgrove v. State, 524 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), but three prior juvenile convictions are insufficient to support depa......
  • Livingston v. State, 68323
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 1988
    ...regarding the failed past rehabilitation and the improbability of future rehabilitation, appear to be valid. See Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987); Burch v. State, 462 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved on other grounds, 476 So.2d 663 Livingston argues that, because the trial cour......
  • 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