Williams v. State, No. 67380
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BARKETT; BOYD |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 289,492 So.2d 1308 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 67380 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 289 Samuel T. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Page 1308
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Patricia Conners, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review Williams v. State, 471 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In this case, the First District upheld Williams' departure sentence and certified the following question as being of great public importance:
WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASONS THAT ARE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FLA.R.CRIM.P. 3.701 IN MAKING ITS DECISION TO DEPART FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, SHOULD THE APPELLATE COURT EXAMINE THE OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENCING.
Id. at 632. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
The certified question has been answered in State v. Young, 476 So.2d 161 (Fla.1985). To limit ourselves to simply answering the certified question, however, would leave
Page 1309
the impression that the remaining reasons deemed permissible by the district court were clear and convincing reasons for departure. To eliminate any confusion on this issue, we deem it necessary to consider the reasons sustained by the court below. We find them to be insufficient.The fact that Williams "[h]as engaged in [a] violent pattern of conduct which indicates a serious danger to society" is not a clear and convincing reason for departure from the guidelines under the facts of this case. The only evidence presented to support such a finding is the defendant's prior record. Williams received twenty-seven points for prior convictions. Thus, his prior criminal history was already considered in computing his recommended punishment under the guidelines. A trial judge may not depart from the guidelines based on a factor which has already been weighed in arriving at a presumptive sentence. State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986); Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218, 1220 (Fla.1985); Napoles v. State, 463 So.2d 478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
It is also improper to depart based on the trial court's perception that the recommended sentence under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. State, No. 4D11–607.
...3.701(d)(11)), a trial judge is empowered to impose an upward departure above the “permitted” guideline sentence. See Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla.1986); cf. Wick v. State, 651 So.2d 765, 766 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (stating that sentencing a defendant within the permitted r......
-
U.S.A v. Lewis, No. 09-4343
...been weighed in arriving at a presumptive sentence.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523, 525 (Fla.1986); Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla.1986)). The mandatory character of the Florida guidelines virtually ensured that a defendant would receive a guidelines sentence......
-
Wemett v. State, No. 74723
...is to sentence within the guidelines; departure from the guidelines is the exception to the rule. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla.1986). The exception of upward departure is intended to apply when extraordinary circumstances exist to "reasonably justify aggravating .......
-
Moore v. State, No. BR-495
...and remand for resentencing within the recommended guidelines range. See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987); Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986). Finally, we reverse point three and remand with directions to hold further proceedings, after providing appellant with adequate n......
-
Peters v. State, No. 4D11–607.
...3.701(d)(11)), a trial judge is empowered to impose an upward departure above the “permitted” guideline sentence. See Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla.1986); cf. Wick v. State, 651 So.2d 765, 766 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (stating that sentencing a defendant within the permitted r......
-
U.S.A v. Lewis, No. 09-4343
...been weighed in arriving at a presumptive sentence.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523, 525 (Fla.1986); Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla.1986)). The mandatory character of the Florida guidelines virtually ensured that a defendant would receive a guidelines sentence......
-
Wemett v. State, No. 74723
...is to sentence within the guidelines; departure from the guidelines is the exception to the rule. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla.1986). The exception of upward departure is intended to apply when extraordinary circumstances exist to "reasonably justify aggravating .......
-
Moore v. State, No. BR-495
...and remand for resentencing within the recommended guidelines range. See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987); Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986). Finally, we reverse point three and remand with directions to hold further proceedings, after providing appellant with adequate n......