JUAN MORALES, 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.
The court held that while the trial judge had sufficient information and valid reasons to depart from the sentencing guidelines, the retention of jurisdiction provision was improper.
Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. The trial judge departed from the presumptive sentence, c…
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 conviction and sentence for aggravated battery. We strike the retention of jurisdiction provision of the sentence but otherwise affirm.
Defendant affirmatively selected to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. A score sheet was prepared and submitted. The trial 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 against defenseless people and the particular facts and ¡circumstances relating to the instant offense — 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); Mincey v. State, 460 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Murphy v. State, 459 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Smith v. State, 454 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Any reference by the trial judge to impermissible reasons for departure from the guidelines does not vitiate these valid reasons. Ragan.
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. Ragan.
Accordingly, we strike the retention of jurisdiction provision of the sentence but affirm the judgment and sentence in all other respects.
SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 531 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…be a valid basis for departure, in appropriate circumstances. See McPherson v. State, 505 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hadley v. State, 488 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); VonCarter v. State, 468 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Morales v. State, 471 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Moore v. State, 468 So. 2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). However, victim vulnerability is not a valid reason to [*219] depart when the victim’s helplessness is based on factors common to nearly all victims of armed robbery.…
-
Arba Earl Barr v. State, 473 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…r one third of his sentences. Because appellant was sentenced pursuant to the guidelines under which parole is no longer available, we strike the retention of jurisdiction provision of the sentences. § 921.001(8), Fla.Stat. (1983); Morales v. State, 471 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Williams v. State, 470 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The judgment and sentences are otherwise affirmed. GRIMES, A.C.J., and OTT and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Donnell McPHERSON v. State, 505 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…f the departure the trial judge prepared a lengthy narrative containing considerations which are improper for departure as well as a central theme of excessive force against a particularly vulnerable victim which is a valid reason. Morales v. State, 471 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Moore v. State, 468 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We are not able to evaluate this singular valid reason against the total content of the judge’s writing in support of departure and say that the judge would have departed for…
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
- Smith v. State, 454 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Mincey v. State, 460 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Murphy v. State, 459 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 5th 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)
- Willie v. State, 468 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Ragan v. State, 468 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)