WILLIAM ALFORD, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1984-12-19

No. AX-315

JOANOS and NIMMONS,. JJ., concur.

460 So. 2d 1000 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1984) Negative Treatment

Cited by 32 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the reasons provided for departing from the recommended guideline sentence were not clear and convincing as required by rule.

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant was sentenced to eighteen months, departing from the recommended guideline sentence. The trial court checked four reasons from a list fo…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Clear And Convincing Reasons For Departure Sentencing Guidelines Departure Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear And Convincing Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

WIGGINTON, Judge.

[*1001] WIGGINTON, Judge.

Alford challenges his eighteen-month sentence, arguing that the trial court’s reasons for departing from the recommended guideline sentence are not clear and convincing. We agree and reverse.

In departing from the recommended range, the court merely checked off four reasons from a laundry list of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Those four reasons were:

9. No pretense of moral or legal justification

10. In need of correctional or rehabilitative treatment that can best be provided by commitment to a penal facility

13. Drug or alcohol use

17. Sentence necessary to deter others

Without our having to excavate from the record facts to serve as illumination, the reasons wholly fail to relate to anything within the context of the case. Such ambiguity is prohibited by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d(ll), which requires that departures from presumptive sentences be for clear and convincing reasons, and be set forth in writing.

We hold that the four reasons for departure from the presumptive sentence herein, are, by their form, neither clear nor convincing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for clarification and imposition of sentence outside the guidelines upon stating clear and convincing reasons, or failing such, for sentencing within the guidelines.

JOANOS and NIMMONS,. JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

Creed Martin Vanover v. State, 498 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1986)

…ar and convincing, as it is “ambiguous and lacking in clarity for failure to relate to any identified fact in the context of this case.” Burch v. State, 462 So. 2d 548, 548 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 476 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1985), citing Alford v. State, 460 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Far from producing in the mind of a reviewing judge “a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, that departure is warranted,” State v. Misckler, 488 So. 2d 523, 525 (Fla.1986), this reason for departure is chosen from a lau…
Burch v. State, 462 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)

…n. See Weems v. State, 451 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We find the other stated reasons to be inadequate, the first being ambiguous and lacking in clarity for failure to relate to any identified fact in the context of this case. Alford v. State, 460 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The trial court’s stated reason as to need of rehabilitative treatment that can be best provided by commitment to a penal facility is likewise unclear. See Brooks v. State, 456 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), where the deviati…
Jones v. State, 502 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)

…a Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701. See State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985); Boynton v. State, 473 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA), aff'd., 478 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1232, 89 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986); Alford v. State, 460 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We therefore reverse the defendant’s sentence, and remand for resentencing. Since there will be resen-tencing, we do not reach the issues with respect to costs, but direct the trial court’s attention to Jenkins v. State, 444 So.…

Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.