RICKY EVERETT KEEN, 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.
Ricky Keen appealed his sentencing for multiple offenses, challenging the trial court's departure upward from Florida's sentencing guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the sentence, holding that the trial judge's reasons for departure—Keen's escalating criminal history, prior failure on probation, and unsuitability for non-structured environments—constituted valid grounds under sentencing law.
The appellate court affirmed the sentence, holding that the trial judge's reasons for departure were valid. The judge properly considered Keen's entire criminal history, including juvenile dispositions, and based the departure on Keen's escalating criminal conduct, demonstrated inability to succeed on probation, and unsuitability for a non-structured environment.
[1] A sentencing court may depart upwards from sentencing guidelines based on a defendant's escalating criminal conduct and demonstrated unsuitability for probationary superv…
[2] A defendant's entire criminal history, including juvenile dispositions, may be considered in determining a pattern of conduct leading to current offenses, even if guideli…
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“The trial judge clearly and succinctly stated that he was departing from the guideline recommendation because this appellant has had probation before, was unable or unwilling to abide by its strictures and his conduct is of an escalating criminal nature. These are valid legal reasons for departure.”
Establishes the appellate court's standard for evaluating valid departure reasons and affirms that the trial judge met this standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKeen had a substantial criminal history including juvenile probation for burglary, a 1981 DWI conviction, a 1982 conviction for Resisting Arrest with …
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 Record cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a sentence. We affirm because the stated grounds are sufficient to warrant the one-cell-upwards departure. In his reasons for departure the judge said:
1. Though the sentencing guidelines prohibit the consideration of prior juvenile dispositions, except those occurring within three years of the current conviction, this Court is compelled to consider this Defendant’s entire criminal history, including all juvenile dispositions, in determining his pattern of conduct leading to the instant offenses.
2. In this regard the Court notes from the Pre-Sentence Investigation report filed herein that:
a. The Defendant by his own admission, as a juvenile was placed on probation in Alachua County for burglary offenses.
b. On December 14,1981, the Defendant was adjudged guilty of the offense Driving While Intoxicated and sentenced to 60 days in jail or $276.60 fine.
c. On March 16, 1982, the Defendant was adjudged guilty of Resisting Arrest with Violence and sentenced to 51 weeks in the Putnam County Jail.
d. On October 31, 1983, the Defendant was charged with the offenses of Burglary and Grand Theft for which he was referred to the Pre-Trial Intervention program from which he was rejected on March 9, 1984, for failure to appear for appointments. Said charges are presently pending against the Defendant in Levy County.
e. The instant offense occurred on April 22, 1984.
f. On May 14, 1984, the Defendant was adjudged guilty of Driving without a valid License and Failure to Appear for which he was sentenced to 10 days in the Putnam County Jail.
3. The above criminal history of this Defendant evinces to this Court that the Defendant’s criminal conduct is escalating, he has had the benefit of probation and county jail and his criminal conduct has been undeterred by pending felony charges. Further, he has failed to demonstrate any respect for the criminal justice system and has demonstrated his insuitability to probationary supervision.
4. It is obvious to this Court that the Defendant is unable to live in a non-structed [sic] environment without violating the laws of society and that, therefore, the protection of society requires that he be institutionalized by a term of imprisonment far in excess of that provided under the sentencing guidelines. Accordingly, this Court has imposed sentences totaling 30 months on this Defendant.
The trial judge clearly and succinctly stated that he was departing from the guideline recommendation because this appellant has had probation before, was unable or unwilling to abide by its strictures and his conduct is of an escalating criminal nature. These are valid legal reasons for departure. The matters discussed in the sentencing order can be considered, and should be considered a preamble to the valid reasons for departure.
AFFIRMED.
UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents with opinion.
[*1276] COWART, Judge,
dissenting:
The trial court departed from the recommended guideline sentence as a reaction to the defendant’s criminal history, noting that:
a. The Defendant by his own admission, as a juvenile was placed on probation in Alachua County for burglary offenses.
b. On December 14,1981, the Defendant was adjudged guilty of the offense Driving While Intoxicated and sentenced to 60 days in jail or a $276.60 fine.
c. On March 16, 1982, the Defendant was adjudged guilty of Resisting Arrest with Violence and sentenced to 51 weeks in the Putnam County Jail.
d. On October 31, 1983, the Defendant was charged with the offenses of Burglary and Grand Theft for which he was referred to the Pre-Trial Intervention program from which he was rejected on March 9, 1984, for failure to appear for appointments. Said charges are presently pending against the Defendant in Levy County.
e. The instant offense occurred on April 22, 1984.
f. On May 14, 1984, the Defendant was adjudged guilty of Driving without a valid License and Failure to Appear for which he was sentenced to 10 days in the Putnam County Jail.
Eight of the total of twelve points on defendant’s guideline sentencing score-sheet related to his prior record of five misdemeanors including a juvenile disposition. The recommended guideline sentence was any non-state prison sanction. Based on reasons relating to (1) the primary offense being scored (e above), (2) the prior record that had been scored (a, b, c, d and f above), and (3) a prior arrest without conviction (d above) (an improper reason for deviating under 3.701(d)(ll)), the trial court departed and imposed a sentence of thirty months incarceration. This departure sentence should be reversed on the authority of Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985), and Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). In effect, the trial judge reviewed the defendant’s prior criminal record and concluded that because of it or its extent or form or content or pattern, the recommended guideline sentence was not sufficient and a departure sentence should be imposed. This is what the sentencing court did, and the Supreme Court disapproved, in Hendrix. This case is legally indistinguishable from the following post-Hendrix/Albritton cases from this court reversing departure sentences based on the defendant’s prior criminal record: DeVane v. State, 479 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Cord v. State, 478 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hall v. State, 478 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Shelton v. State, 478 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Bentley v. State, 477 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Holt v. State, 477 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 486 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…2d 1218 (Fla.1985), it appears at a minimum that reasons two1 and four are invalid. Also, while unamenability to previous attempts at rehabilitation or probation (reason number 3) appears still to be a valid reason for departure, see Keen v. State, 481 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), it is questionable whether risk to physical safety of others (reason number one) remains a valid reason for departure. See Roberson v. State, 483 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); see also Parker v. State, 481 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th…1 / 2
-
Riggins v. State, 489 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…cord and finds that because of its extent, form, content or pattern, the recommended guidelines sentence is not sufficient, departure cannot be upheld under Hendrix. E.g., Roberson v. State, 483 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), but see Keen v. State, 481 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (Cowart, J., dissenting). This court recently held in Casteel v. State, 481 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), that a reason stating “the defendant’s prior history of criminal activity and behavior establishes a pattern of conduct t…
-
Pittman v. State, 492 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…477 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (the appellate court read the trial court’s reference to prior offenses as illustrating the course Johnson’s criminal conduct was taking, "his offenses are progressing to the violent and dangerous”); Keen v. State, 481 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (the trial court found that Keen’s "criminal conduct is escalating” and the departure was affirmed, Judge Cowart dissenting); Booker v. State, 482 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (the appellate court construed Hendrix, finding tha…
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 (11 total)
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Shelton v. State, 478 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Bentley v. State, 477 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Hall v. State, 478 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- DeVANE v. State, 479 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Tanjelia Marie Holt v. State, 477 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Sanchious v. State, 478 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)