Williams v. State, 87-02878

Decision Date27 April 1990
Docket NumberNo. 87-02878,87-02878
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D1147 Lucious WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Paul C. Helm, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stephen A. Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PATTERSON, Judge.

After revocation of probation, appellant was sentenced for aggravated battery and third degree murder. Appellant violated probation twice within six months. The sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence of seven to twelve years. The trial judge departed from the guidelines and sentenced appellant to two fifteen year consecutive terms of imprisonment and ordered appellant to be shackled at all times while in the state prison system. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

A second violation of probation is a valid reason for departure. See Adams v. State, 490 So.2d 53 (Fla.1986); Williams v. State, 559 So.2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (en banc); Pullens v. State, 516 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Washington v. State, 510 So.2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Weathers v. State, 508 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); and Simmons v. State, 496 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We do not construe Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1989) to alter this well established rule. Although it may be argued that the broad language utilized in Ree prohibits the imposition of a departure sentence based on two or more violations of probation, it is clear from reading the opinion, together with Ree v. State, 512 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), that the question of a departure sentence based upon multiple violations of probation was not presented or ruled upon by the court. Although we find several of the fourteen reasons enumerated by the trial court as a basis for departure to be invalid, it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that even if the second violation of probation was the only reason for departure, the trial judge would have imposed the same departure sentence. See Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.

Upon the imposition of sentence, Williams erupted in a violent outburst of foul language and physically attempted to attack the judge. He was restrained by three bailiffs and continued to scream obscenities as he was removed from the courtroom. Predicated on this conduct the trial judge ordered that he be shackled at all times during his term of imprisonment. This requirement was made part of the written judgment and sentence. Although under the circumstances presented one may empathize with the trial judge, such an order is beyond the authority of the court. See Page v. State, 376 So.2d 901, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We direct that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Maxwell v. State, 90-1536
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 7, 1991
    ...hand, the second district court of appeal has reached a contrary decision by according continuing efficacy to Adams. Williams v. State, 568 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (according to Adams a second violation of probation is a valid reason for departure, and the rule in Ree has not altered ......
  • Freeman v. State, 89-02436
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 8, 1991
    ...had his probation restored, constitute a valid basis for departure beyond the one-cell bump for probation violations. Williams v. State, 568 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Williams v. State, 559 So.2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (en ...
  • DeRicciulli v. State, 90-03006
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 17, 1992
    ...in Williams v. State, 559 So.2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (en banc), review granted, 75,919 (Fla. May 14, 1990), and Williams v. State, 568 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review granted, No. 76,016 (Fla. May 24, 1990). Its argument seems to have two prongs. First, it reasons that the defendant......
  • Knight v. State, 90-89
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 30, 1991
    ...remand for resentencing within the guidelines range one-cell increase. As in Maxwell, we certify direct conflict with Williams v. State, 568 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) and Brown v. State, 559 So.2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA SMITH, NIMMONS and MINER, JJ., concur. ...
  • 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