SAMUEL T. WILLIAMS, 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.
Williams appealed his sentence of five years imprisonment for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, arguing the trial judge improperly departed from the sentencing guidelines by using a checklist format and failing to provide clear and convincing reasons. The appellate court affirmed the sentence while certifying a question of great public importance regarding how appellate courts should handle impermissible sentencing reasons.
Although use of a checklist is disfavored, it does not compel reversal if the reasons relate to facts and circumstances of the crime. Three of the four reasons given were adequate, though one reason ('No pretense of moral or legal justification') was found inadequate. The sentence was affirmed because elimination of the impermissible reason would not have affected the trial judge's decision to depart from guidelines.
[1] The use of a checklist of reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines does not automatically compel reversal, provided the reasons relate to the facts and circumstan…
[2] Reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines must be clear and convincing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“although ... this court looked with disfavor upon the use of a 'checklist' or 'laundry list' when stating reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, the fact that such a list was used does not compel reversal.”
Establishes the legal standard that checklist formats are disfavored but not automatically reversible if reasons relate to case facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted by jury of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The trial judge sentenced him to five years imprisonment, departing from th…
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 Clear And Convincing Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Williams appeals from the imposition of a sentence outside of the recommended guidelines range. We affirm.
Following jury conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, the trial judge sentenced Williams to five years imprisonment rather than accepting the recommended scoresheet sentence of 30 months—3V2 years.
In departing from the guidelines range, the trial judge checked off three aggravating circumstances and wrote in one additional reason. The court’s reasons for departure are:
9. No pretense of moral or legal justification.
11. Has engaged in violent pattern of conduct which indicates a serious danger to society.
32. A lesser sentence is not commensurate with the seriousness of the defendant’s crime.
33. Other reasons: Defendant stabed [sic] victim while she was asleep & therefore particularly vulnerable.
Williams raises two points on appeal: (1) the use of a check list of reasons for departure is per se invalid; and (2) the reasons for departure are not clear and convincing as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll).
As to Williams’ first point, we stated “[ajlthough ... this court looked with disfavor upon the use of a ‘checklist’ or ‘laundry list’ when stating reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, the fact that such a list was used does not compel reversal.” Napóles v. State, 463 So. 2d 478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). When a trial judge uses a check list of reasons to depart from the guidelines,' the reasons must relate to facts and circumstances of the crime in question. Brooks v. State, 466 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We therefore proceed to address Williams’ second point on appeal: whether the four reasons given by the trial judge are clear and convincing.
We find that three of the four reasons relate to the facts and circumstances in the record and are adequate reasons for departure. See Garcia v. State, 454 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Williams v. State, 454 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
This court has on several occasions held that the first reason offered by the trial judge, “No pretense of moral or legal justification”, to be inadequate. Burch v. State, 462 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Alford v. State, 460 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Brooks v. State, 456 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We also find this reason inadequate as failing “to relate to anything within the context of the case.” Alford v. State, 460 So. 2d at 1001.
Although one of the reasons for departure is impermissible, we do not consider that elimination of this reason would have affected the trial judge’s decision to depart from the guidelines. Carney v. State, 458 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Accordingly, we affirm, but, as in Carney v. State and Brooks v. State, certify the following question as being one of great public importance:
WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASONS THAT ARE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FLA.R.CRIM.P. 3.701 IN MAKING ITS DECISION TO DEPART FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, SHOULD THE APPELLATE COURT EXAMINE THE OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENCING.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, C.J., and WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1986)…BARKETT, Justice. We have for review Williams v. State, 471 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In this case, the First District upheld Williams’ departure sentence and certified the following question as being of great public importance: WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASON…
-
Alphonso Prosperty Smith v. State, 479 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ollateral crime evidence was denied by the trial court. . We reject appellant’s assertion that the mere use of a "laundry list” or "check list” by a trial court in delineating its reasons for departure is per se reversible error. Williams v. State, 471 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). . Factor number 6 in the list of reasons for departure cannot be considered as a "reason”, since the import of this stated reason is that the trial judge’s decision to depart motivated the state’s decision, whereas the issue fo…
-
Carter v. State, 485 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…rim.P. 3.701 b.6. Three reasons were stated by the trial judge: 1) The killing was unnecessary. 2) The victim’s family has suffered emotionally and financially because, of his death. 3) Appellant attempted to evade capture. In Williams v. State, 471 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), a trial court’s reason of “ ‘[n]o pretense of moral or legal justification’ ” was found to be an inadequate basis for departure from the sentencing guidelines. This is equivalent to the trial judge’s finding in the present case…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Onelia Garcia and Matthew Lee Wilson v. State, 454 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Burch v. State, 462 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Carney v. State, 458 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Brooks v. State, 456 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Alford v. State, 460 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Williams v. State, 454 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Brooks v. State, 466 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Napoles v. State, 463 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)