WILLIE DAWKINS, 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 the trial court erred by failing to provide a separate written document stating its reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines and by relying on insufficient reasons for the departure.
[1] A trial court must prepare a separate document setting forth the reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines.
[2] The severity of a crime may be a valid reason for departing from sentencing guidelines only when the offense occurs under unusual or extraordinary circumstances.
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 intelligenceThe defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of cocaine delivery. At sentencing, the trial court departed from the presumptive guidelines sentence, imp…
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 Presumptive Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
The appellant, Willie Dawkins, appeals from the trial court’s imposition of a sentence enhanced beyond the guidelines’ range. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
Dawkins was charged in an information on February 3, 1984, with two counts of delivery of cocaine and two counts of possession of cocaine. The acts allegedly occurred on January 10 and 12, 1984. A subsequent information was filed by the state charging Dawkins with two additional counts of delivery of cocaine and three additional counts of possession of cocaine, events which allegedly occurred on January 17 and 18, 1984. Dawkins pleaded guilty to four counts of delivery of cocaine in exchange for the state’s dismissal of the five counts of possession of cocaine. The trial court accepted the plea and adjudicated Dawkins guilty of the remaining four charges.
At the sentencing hearing on July 13, 1984, a guidelines scoresheet was prepared showing a presumptive sentence of twelve to thirty months incarceration or community control. In determining the presumptive sentence, Dawkins’ two prior convictions were included in the computation. Before departing from the recommended sentence, the trial court stated:
THE COURT: In light of the severity and amounts of money involved in at least one of these cases, and the facts there are four separate occasions over eight days and his prior convictions, I’m going outside the guidelines. Prepare the order setting out the facts of each of these four cases and the amount of money involved and his prior convictions.
The trial court then sentenced Dawkins to four concurrent fifteen-year terms of imprisonment. There is neither a separate written document nor reference in the scoresheet to the reasons relied upon by the trial court in exceeding the guidelines sentence.
Before reaching the adequacy of the departure grounds, it is appropriate to review the sentencing procedure followed by the trial court. The supreme court recently construed Rule 3.701(d)(11) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure to require the trial court to prepare a separate document setting forth the reasons for departure. State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985). Thus, the trial court’s mere incorporation of departure grounds in the sentencing transcript fails to satisfy the rule and constitutes error. Beal v. State, 478 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Error also occurred in the trial court’s failure to justify its departure with clear and convincing reasons. The first reason for departure relied upon by the trial court was the severity of the crime. Severity of the crime has been recognized in certain circumstances as a valid reason for departure. Williams v. State, 454 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (innocent children present in home when defendant raped their mother and forced her to perform fellatio on him); Murphy v. State, 459 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (defendant running a drug business in convenience store parking lot). Nothing in the record before us, however, indicates that Daw-kins’ deliveries of cocaine occurred under or in association with unusual or extraordinary circumstances rendering the recommended sentence inadequate.
The second reason for departure was the amount of money involved in the delivery of cocaine. The amount involved in the four deliveries was $1,300.00, $2,300.00, $50.00 and $40.00. The Fourth District has held that the amount of money involved in a crime is an invalid reason for departure. Knowlton v. State, 466 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We agree.
The trial court also attached a significance it deemed sufficient to justify departure to the fact that the crimes were committed on four occasions over eight days. This reason is equally deficient. We recognize that deviation from the guidelines has been sustained in the past because of temporal and geographical considerations surrounding an offense. See Manning v. State, 452 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (defendants embarked on “crime binge” involving numerous burglaries committed over a two-day period). However, in the instant matter, Dawkins cannot be said to have gone on a “crime binge” by undertaking four cocaine transactions in eight days.
The final reason for exceeding the guidelines was Dawkins’ prior convictions. The defect in that reason is that Dawkins’ prior convictions were scored in calculating his presumptive sentence. Thus, the trial court’s duplicative use of the prior convictions was impermissible. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985).
In sum, we find none of the reasons relied upon by the trial court clear and convincing. Accordingly, the appellant’s sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Patten v. State, 492 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…cing should depart the presumptive guidelines sentence due to the appellant’s prior offenses, which had already been factored into the presumptive sentence. Such reasoning is improper. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985); Dawkins v. State, 479 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) and Pilgrim v. State, 480 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Further, the court made reference to pending charges against the appellant for a reason for guidelines departure. This is improper. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701…
-
Bienvenido Guerrero v. State, 484 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…fense is a proper reason for departure. Irwin v. State, 479 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). However, this court has also held that the amount of money involved in the crime of delivery of cocaine is not a valid reason for departure. Dawkins v. State, 479 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Therefore, a portion of the court’s first reason was an invalid reason for departure. The court’s other two reasons for departure, that appellant perjured himself and did not cooperate with law enforcement, were clearly impermi…
-
COX v. State, 508 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…he defendant committed five armed robberies in a period of only ten days. In our view, the commission of two automobile burglaries and a household burglary over a period of three days simply will not qualify as a “crime spree.” See Dawkins v. State, 479 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), wherein four sales of cocaine during an eight day period were held not to constitute a “crime binge.” Neither can we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that appellant’s record demonstrated an “escalating pattern of criminal…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Manning v. State, 452 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Knowlton v. State, 466 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Murphy v. State, 459 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Williams v. State, 454 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Beal v. State, 478 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)