STEVEN LAMAR RAGAN, 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.
Defendant Ragan appeals his convictions for armed robbery, grand theft, conspiracy to commit robbery, and carrying a concealed weapon. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences but struck the trial judge's retention of jurisdiction provision as impermissible under sentencing guidelines law.
The trial judge properly departed from the guidelines based on clear and convincing reasons, including the defendant's probation violation and habitual violent criminal conduct. However, the trial judge erred in retaining jurisdiction over the sentences because parole is no longer available when sentencing guidelines apply, making such retention prohibited.
[1] A trial court may depart from recommended sentencing guidelines if it has sufficient information and articulates clear and convincing reasons for the departure in a writt…
[2] A defendant's violation of probation and habitual course of violent criminal conduct can constitute clear and convincing reasons 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“A trial court is prohibited from retaining jurisdiction over a defendant in which the sentencing guidelines apply since parole is no longer available to him in such cases.”
Establishes the legal rule that trial courts cannot retain jurisdiction when sentencing guidelines apply because parole is unavailable.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of armed robbery, grand theft, conspiracy to commit robbery, and carrying a concealed weapon. He affirmatively selected to be …
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 Departure From Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
Defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for armed robbery, grand theft, conspiracy to commit robbery, and carrying a concealed weapon. We strike the retention of jurisdiction provision of the sentences but otherwise affirm.
Defendant affirmatively selected to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. A scoresheet was prepared and submitted. The trial judge was aware of defendant’s presumptive sentence under the guidelines.
Thus, unlike our cases of Rasul v. State, 465 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) Doby v. State, 461 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the trial judge had sufficient information before him when he decided to depart from the recommended guidelines range in sentencing the defendant.
Moreover, the trial judge set forth a number of reasons for departure in his comprehensive written order containing findings of aggravating circumstances. These reasons — defendant’s violation of probation, his habitual course of violent criminal conduct indicating that he is unsuitable for probation or community control, and the facts and circumstances relating to the instant offenses — provide clear and convincing reasons supporting the trial judge’s departure from the guidelines. Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Townsend v. State, 458 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) and cases cited therein; Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) and cases cited therein. Any reference by the trial judge to impermissible reasons for departure from the guidelines does not vitiate these valid reasons. Brinson v. State, 463 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Webster.
We agree with defendant’s contention that the trial judge erred in retaining jurisdiction over his sentences pursuant to section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1983). A trial court is prohibited from retaining jurisdiction over a defendant in which the sentencing guidelines apply since parole is no longer available to him in such cases. Coward v. State, 465 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Emory v. State, 463 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Carter v. State, 464 So. 2d 172 (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.
LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keys v. State, 473 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…. State, 455 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review granted, 475 So. 2d 1218, Supreme Court No. 65,928. Any reference by the trial judge to impermissible reasons for departure from the guidelines does not vitiate these valid reasons. Ragan v. State, 468 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d 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. St…
-
Morales v. State, 471 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ial judge was aware of defendant’s presumptive sentence under the guidelines. Thus the trial judge had sufficient information before him when he decided.to depart from the recommended guidelines range in sentencing the defendant. See Ragan v. State, 468 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Moreover, the trial judge set forth a number of reasons for departure in his comprehensive written order containing findings of aggravating circumstances. These reasons — defendant’s outrageous actions and excessive use of force…
-
Kerr v. State, 481 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…jurisdiction over his sentence. A trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a defendant where sentencing guidelines apply, since parole is no longer available in such cases pursuant to section 921.001(8), Florida Statutes (1983). Ragan v. State, 468 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we strike the retention of jurisdiction provision of defendant’s sentences. See Blackwelder v. State, 476 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Barr v. State, 473 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Otherwise, we affirm the jud…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Carter v. State, 464 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Doby v. State, 461 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Keithie's Roofing Co. Inc. v. LEE Parks Apts., Inc., 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Benny Lee Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Townsend v. State, 458 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Natal Rasul v. State, 465 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Brinson v. State, 463 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Herndon W. Jones, Jr. v. Jones, 463 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)