GUY LEE BRYANT, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Bryant appeals a Florida Parole and Probation Commission order setting his presumptive parole release date, challenging two sixty-month aggravations for armed robbery. The court affirmed the aggravation based on a dismissed count identified through proper procedures but reversed the aggravation for endangering bank customers where no evidence showed customers were present.
The court affirmed the sixty-month aggravation based on the dismissed Jacksonville Savings and Loan count, as Commission rule 23-21.10 allows reliance on competent and persuasive information from dismissed counts resulting from plea agreements. The court reversed the sixty-month aggravation for endangering bank customers because no evidence in the record showed that any bank customers were present or endangered.
[1] Information supporting a dismissed indictment count may be relied upon by the Parole and Probation Commission as an aggravating or mitigating circumstance if it is compet…
[2] A sixty-month aggravation of a presumptive parole release date for displaying additional danger to bank customers during an armed robbery is improper when the record lack…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Commission rule 23-21.-10 which allows information supporting a count of an indictment which is dismissed as the result of a plea agreement to be relied upon as an aggravating or mitigating circumstance, provided it is competent and persuasive”
Establishes the legal standard permitting use of dismissed count information in parole determinations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBryant pled guilty on March 24, 1980, to armed robbery of First Federal Savings and Loan on December 27, 1979. A second robbery charge against Jackson…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presumptive Parole Release Date cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Bryant appeals from the Florida Parole and Probation Commission order establishing his presumptive parole release date (PPRD). He challenges Commission action aggravating him sixty months for displaying additional danger to other customers in the bank in commission of an armed robbery of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Jacksonville on December 27, 1979, and sixty months for having been identified as a participant in the robbery of Jacksonville Savings and Loan.
Appellant was charged with armed robbery of First Federal on December 27, 1979, in Case No. 80-29.
On March 24, 1980, he pled guilty. Upon entry of his plea, the State nolle prossed the case in which he was charged with robbing Jacksonville Savings and Loan. In this latter robbery, the appellant was picked out of a lineup and positively identified by the victim and witnesses as being the person who robbed the bank at gunpoint. The appellant complains that in light of the nolle pros, this identification should not have been used as an aggravating factor.
We disagree in light of Commission rule 23-21.-10 which allows information supporting a count of an indictment which is dismissed as the result of a plea agreement to be relied upon as an aggravating or mitigating circumstance, provided it is competent and persuasive. The appellant has not shown that the information relied upon by the Commission does not meet this standard. The sixty-month aggravation based upon the information is accordingly affirmed.
In challenging the sixty-month aggravation for displaying additional danger to other customers in the bank, the appellant points out that at the time of the offense only two tellers were present. This is corroborated by the presentence investigation, which reflects that appellant entered the bank, pulled a pistol on the two tellers, Barbara Driscoll and Denise Helms, and made them hand over money by threatening to “blow their heads off.” Appellant’s point is well taken. The Commission has specifically set forth the basis of its decision to aggravate the prisoner’s parole release date beyond the matrix time frame, yet there is absolutely no evidence or mention in the record of bank customers being present and placed in danger.
The evidence upon which the aggravation is based does not meet the competent and persuasive criteria set forth in Commission rule 23-21.10. We accordingly reverse the sixty-month aggravation imposed upon the appellant for displaying additional danger to other customers in the bank.
The appellant’s remaining points are without merit. The Commission order is therefore affirmed with the exception of this Court’s reversal of the sixty-month aggravation for displaying additional danger to other customers in the bank.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
SHAW, JOANOS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.