RONALD IVEY EMORY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Appellant Ronald Emory challenges his sentences for multiple crimes including lewd and lascivious behavior with a child, armed burglary, aggravated battery, and shooting into an occupied dwelling. The court affirms the trial judge's departure from sentencing guidelines but reverses the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over half the sentence, finding the defendant was not properly informed of this retention before sentencing.
The court held that clear and convincing reasons supported the departure from sentencing guidelines based on the defendant's prior criminal activity and the nature of the offenses. However, the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over any portion of the sentence without informing the defendant before sentencing, and such retention was inappropriate for a defendant sentenced under the guidelines.
[1] A trial court may depart from sentencing guidelines if clear and convincing reasons exist, considering factors related to the instant offenses and prior convictions.
[2] A trial court's oral pronouncement of findings into the record satisfies the written requirement for departing from sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the sentencing guidelines are designed to aid a judge in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular crime; such determination is within the sound discretion of the trial court”
Establishes that trial courts have discretion to depart from guidelines when appropriate reasons exist
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEmory was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under age 14 (June 1983) and five additional charges including armed bu…
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 Prior Criminal Record cases and more on FLexlaw
LOGAN, PAUL E., Associate Judge.
In these consolidated appeals Appellant (Emory) challenges sentences outside the guidelines with the trial court retaining jurisdiction over one-half the sentence. We set aside the retention of jurisdiction, but affirm the departure from the sentencing guidelines.
Emory was charged by information with two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under the. age of 14, allegedly committed in June, 1983. By separate information Emory was also charged with armed burglary, aggravated battery, shooting into an occupied dwelling, and two counts of aggravated assault all allegedly committed in September, 1983. Emory entered pleas of guilty, requested to be sentenced under the guidelines, was adjudicated guilty and received the following sentences: lewd and lascivious behavior, 15 years each count, consecutive; armed burglary, life; aggravated battery, 15 years consecutive; shooting into an occupied dwelling, 15 years consecutive; aggravated assault, 5 years each count, consecutive.
In departing from the guidelines and retaining jurisdiction the trial judge stated:
THE COURT: It is the Judgment, Order and Sentence of this Court that Ronald Ivey Emory — and I should note that in ’61 he has a crime against nature, five years State Prison. Then ’83 a misdemeanor and then the next day another unrelated misdemeanor and then two lewd and lascivious and then this shooting in which the victim is shot.
On 83-8095 it is the Judgment, Order and Sentence of this Court that on this Count that Mr. Emory be confined in the Florida State Prison for fifteen years. Count II aggravated battery fifteen years consecutive.
For shooting into an occupied dwelling fifteen years consecutive.
For each count of aggravated assault five years consecutive.
Give him credit for all time served. I will retain jurisdiction on the armed burglary, the aggravated battery, the shooting into an occupied dwelling and aggravated assault for one-half of the sentence in that a firearm was used. Let me have the form, please. Also because he has a significant history of prior criminal activity. The victim is injured. It is necessary for the protection of the public. It is a serious crime. It is a firearm or other weapon used. There are a large number of people exposed to danger. The crime involved the use of potential violence.
He has the right to appeal this sentence. He must do so within thirty days and has the right to be represented by his own attorney or free attorney on that appeal if he cannot afford one.
Prepare a written order and be sure and put in the crime against nature in ’61, the misdemeanor in ’83, the unrelated misde meanor the next day, these two lewd and lascivious and the armed burglary as the basis for going outside the guidelines.
Prior to sentencing Emory was not told that the Court would retain jurisdiction over any portion of the sentence imposed. These appeals followed.
Taking the departure from the sentencing guidelines first, we hold that there were clear and convincing reasons for the departure. The sentencing guidelines are designed to aid a judge in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular crime; such determination is within the sound discretion of the trial court. See, Weems v. State, 451 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Rule 3.701(d)(11), Fla.R. Crim.P. permits the trial court to consider factors relating to the instant offenses and prior offenses for which convictions have been obtained. The dictation of findings into the record satisfies the writing requirement. Harvey v. State, 450 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In the cases before us the trial judge’s findings of aggravating circumstances read into the record related only to Emory’s prior arrests, or charges on the instant case, for which convictions were obtained.
As to the second point on appeal, we hold as error the trial court’s failure to inform Emory before he was sentenced that the court would retain jurisdiction over any portion of the sentence imposed. State v. Green, 421 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1982); Brown v. State, 434 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In any event, since appellant was sentenced under the guidelines, the retention of jurisdiction with respect to parole was inappropriate. Carter v. State, 464 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
The judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED. The retention of jurisdiction is set aside.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. State, 468 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ole. Section 921.001(8), Florida Statutes (1983). Rather than vacating guidelines sentences because the trial court improperly retained jurisdiction, the Second District Court of Appeal has heretofore merely set aside the retention. Emory v. State, 463 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hawkins v. State, 463 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Carter v. State, 464 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Cf., Walker v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) [10 FLW 753] (error recognized, but sentence vacated on other grounds). But in the…
-
Williams v. State, 470 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…A 1979). Parole, however, is not available to defendant because he was sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. § 921.001(8), Fla. Stat. (1983). Thus, the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over defendant’s sentence. Emory v. State, 463 So. 2d 1242 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Hawkins v. State, 463 So. 2d 480 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Carter v. State, 464 So. 2d 172 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur.…
-
Keys v. State, 473 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…Albritton v. State, 458 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review granted, Supreme Court No. 66,169. However, we do agree with Keys’ contention that the trial judge erred in retaining jurisdiction over his sentences. See Ragan v. State; Emory v. State, 463 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we strike the retention of jurisdiction provisions of the sentences, but affirm the judgments and sentences in all other respects. COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Green, 421 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1982)
- Harvey v. State, 450 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Sherman v. State, 451 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Carter v. State, 464 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Mickey Allen Brown v. State, 434 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)