GEORGE BATTLES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
George Battles appeals concurrent life sentences for burglary and two counts of robbery, challenging their proportionality to a 15-year plea offer and the trial court's sentencing departure reasons. The Florida appellate court agreed that the trial court's stated reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines were invalid and reversed for resentencing.
The trial court's stated reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines were invalid because at least one was based on defendant's prior convictions and another on an inherent component of the crime charged. The state failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the invalid reasons would not have affected the sentence. The sentence was vastly harsher than the plea offer without legally acceptable justification.
[1] A departure sentence grounded on both valid and invalid reasons must be reversed and remanded for resentencing unless the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that th…
[2] Reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines are insufficient when based on prior convictions or an inherent component of the crime charged.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“at least one of the reasons was [*541] based on defendant's prior convictions and another was based on an inherent component of the crime charged. Thus, the stated reasons are not sufficient to justify the departure.”
Establishes the specific grounds for finding the sentencing departure invalid under Hendrix and Baker
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBattles was convicted following trial of one count of burglary and two counts of robbery. The trial court imposed concurrent life sentences without po…
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 Vindictive Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Battles challenges concurrent life sentences imposed by .the court upon his convictions, following trial, of one count of burglary and two counts of robbery. He contends that (a) life sentences imposed without possibility of parole are so greatly disproportionate to the 15 year sentences offered him in exchange for a guilty plea that they constitute an impermissible penalty on the exercise of his constitutional right to a jury trial; (b) life sentences without possibility of parole are cruel and unusual punishment; (c) two of the court’s three reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines are invalid; and (d) the guidelines under which he was sentenced are unconstitutional. Because we agree that the trial court’s stated reasons for departing from the guidelines do not justify the sentences, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing.
The trial court specified three reasons for departing from the guidelines; * however, at least one of the reasons was based on defendant’s prior convictions and another was based on an inherent component of the crime charged. Thus, the stated reasons are not sufficient to justify the departure. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Baker v. State, 466 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
The Florida supreme court announced the procedure to be followed in these circumstances. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985). “[W]hen a departure sentence is grounded on both valid and invalid reasons[,] ... the sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the sentence.” We find that the state failed to meet its burden and that resentencing is mandated.
Furthermore, we note that when the sentence imposed is vastly harsher than the sentence offered in exchange for a guilty plea, the court must justify the more severe sentence to avoid any inference of vindictiveness for defendant’s assertion of constitutional rights. Fraley v. State, 426 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), on remand sub nom. Frazier v. State, 467 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 475 So. 2d 694 (Fla.1985). There is no legally acceptable justification contained in the trial judge’s articulated reasons for the extent of his departure from the plea offer. We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing without prejudice to the presentation in the trial court of a challenge to the constitutionality of the guidelines.
Reversed and remanded.
*
The judge's reasons for departure were:
"1) Proximity in time of release from prison on prior sentence [imposed by] this court and [defendant’s] commission [of] this crime show[s] lack of rehabilitation and danger to society.
2) Increasing severity of crimes. 3) Nature of crime re: age [of] victims and danger to them.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 521 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…in negotiations, the record must show that no improper weight was given the failure to plead guilty. United States v. Stockwell, 472 F. 2d 1186, 1187-88 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 948, 93 S.Ct. 1924, 36 L.Ed. 2d 409 (1973); Battles v. State, 482 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See also Frazier, 467 So. 2d at 449, n. 5. The appellant argues that since the trial judge was involved in this plea negotiation a presumption of vindictiveness attaches which requires this court to remand for resentencing. In s…
-
Ballard v. State, 501 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…2d DCA 1986); Booker v. State, 482 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Smith v. State, 480 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Kiser v. State, 455 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Higgs v. State, 455 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). But see Battles v. State, 482 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Smith v. State, 479 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accordingly, the sentence entered by the trial court is hereby affirmed. DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur. HURLEY, DANIEL T.K., Associate Judge, dissents with opinion.…
-
Allangson Brunson v. State, 492 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…for departing from the guidelines were invalid reasons, regardless of any support in the record for same, to wit: (1) the defendant’s prior criminal history of assaultive behavior, see Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Battles v. State, 482 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); and (2) the defendant’s lack of remorse for having committed the offense for which he was sentenced. Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), approved, 488 So. 2d 5…
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
- 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)
- Terence A. Baker v. State, 466 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Fraley v. State, 426 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Frazier v. State, 467 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)