PAUL F. HALE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1986-04-10
No. 85-705
UPCHURCH, J., concurs., SHARP, J., concurs specially with opinion.
486 So. 2d 93 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1986) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Topics
Written Reasons For Departure Statutory Maximum Sentence Sentencing Guidelines Departure

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
DAUKSCH, Judge.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a sentence. Appellant was given a sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines for a crime which occurred before the effective date of those guidelines. Because appellant did not affirmatively elect to be sentenced under the guidelines, we quash the sentence and remand for resentencing. Irving v. State, 464 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hart v. State, 464 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, J., concurs.

SHARP, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Concurrence
SHARP, Judge,

SHARP, Judge,

concurring specially.

The trial judge sentenced Hale to the maximum possible statutory sentence — fifteen years. It was a departure of seven brackets beyond the recommended guidelines sentence, had they been affirmatively elected and applicable.

In this case, the trial judge gave the following written reasons for his departure sentence, since he thought he was obligated to render a guidelines sentence:

(1) Same offense — flagrant disregard for probation

(2) Same M.O. as in 1982/83 (3) No evidence of remorse or rehabilitation

(4) Incredible testimony — obviously not telling the truth

(5) Same story used in 1983

(6) Stolen property recovered from 4 burglaries

Some of the reasons are duplicative. As a whole, they would not support the extent of the trial judge’s departure, under case law interpretation of the guidelines,1 but these cases were rendered after the sentence in this case.

Under these circumstances, it is not clear to me that the trial judge would have imposed the maximum statutory sentence in a non-guidelines case. This case can therefore be distinguished from Kaymore v. State, 482 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). I think this case should be remanded for resentencing. Irving v. State, 464 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hart v. State, 464 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

. See Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Burke v. State, 483 So. 2d 404 (Fla.1985); Edwards v. State, 482 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Parker v. State, 481 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Pilgrim v. State, 480 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Sloan v. State, 472 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
    …n appeal, the circuit court reversed the county court’s judgment. Park-view then sought common-law certiorari review of the circuit court’s order in the Second District Court of Appeal, which denied the petition upon the authority of Combs v. State, 486 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983). The district court expressed some concern, however, about the prevailing law defining the standard of review of a district court when reviewing an appellate decision of a circuit court. The court was particularly concerned that we may ha…
  • Goldfarb v. Urciuoli, 858 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
    …on for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order. I. On a writ of certiorari, this Court reviews the action of the lower court to determine whether the lower court departed from the essential requirements of the law. See Combs v. State, 486 So. 2d 93, 95-96 (Fla.1983). Certiorari review is proper to review the denial of a motion to dismiss when chapter 766 presuit requirements are at issue. See Okaloosa County v. Custer, 697 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Review is proper because to allow a pa…
  • Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Wirth, 49 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
    …. As the supreme court has directed, this court should only exercise its discretion to grant certiorari relief “when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law result [*805] ing in a miscarriage of justice.” Combs v. State, 486 So. 2d 93, 96 (Fla.1983). An injured plaintiff who desires to institute a medical malpractice suit must first conduct an investigation that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant(s) was negligent and that negligence resulted in injury. § 7…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw