CLARENCE SIAS III, 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.
Appellant Clarence Sias III challenges his sentences for kidnapping, robbery, and sexual battery, arguing that the trial court improperly departed from sentencing guidelines based on three aggravating factors. The court affirmed the sentences, finding that psychological trauma to the victim—though two other cited factors were questionable or invalid—was a valid and sufficient basis for departure.
The court affirmed the sentences. While factor one (excessive force) was questionable and factor three (DES requirement) was conceded invalid by the state, the psychological trauma inflicted upon the victim was a valid and sufficient reason for departure from the sentencing guidelines. Psychological trauma is a valid departure factor when it is not an essential element of the crime itself and the facts supporting it are credible and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] Psychological trauma inflicted upon a victim is a valid reason for departure from sentencing guidelines when it is not an inherent component of the crime and is supported…
[2] Threats of violence, including the placement of a cold steel barrel against a victim's head, can be considered in determining the psychological trauma inflicted upon the…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Psychological trauma is a valid reason for departure where it is not an inherent component of the crime, cf. State v. Cote, 487 So.2d 1039 (Fla.1986) (psychological impact on the victim is an invalid reason for departure where defendant is convicted of aggravated assault because it is, by statutory definition, an essential element of that crime), and where the facts supporting the reason are credible and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the test for when psychological trauma can justify sentencing departure—when it is not an inherent component of the crime and is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant participated in a gang rape where the victim was severely violated. The victim was subjected to threats of gun use and had a cold steel gun …
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 Psychological Trauma cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Clarence Sias III, challenges his sentences for kidnapping, robbery and sexual battery without the use of a firearm. We affirm.
Appellant contends that the three reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines: (1) excessive force, (2) psychological trauma, fear and terror to the victim and (3) that the victim was required to take a drug which could cause cancer in her unborn children (DES to prevent pregnancy) are invalid. While we find factor one to be questionable and the state has conceded that factor three is invalid, we nonetheless hold that the sentence is affirmable in view of the psychological trauma, fear and terror inflicted upon this victim. Head v. State, 473 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The appellant participated in a gang rape in which the victim was severely violated. Though the appellant was not convicted of using a firearm, the record reveals that the victim was subjected to threats of the use of a gun and had a cold steel barrel placed against her blindfolded head. These circumstances were properly considered in determining the trauma inflicted upon the victim. Vanover v. State, 481 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Psychological trauma is a valid reason for departure where it is not an inherent component of the crime, cf. State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1986) (psychological impact on the victim is an invalid reason for departure where defendant is convicted of aggravated assault because it is, by statutory definition, an essential element of that crime), and where the facts supporting the reason are credible and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Hankey v. State, 485 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1986). .Psychological trauma, which was proved by the evidence below is not an essential element of any of the crimes for which appellant was convicted and is therefore a valid reason to depart in this case.
In view of the trial judge’s positive determination in this case that:
The court finds each of these three clear and convincing reasons in and of themselves to be sufficient to aggravate and go above the guidelines in this particular case.
we find that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the factor of psychological trauma standing alone would have caused the trial judge to depart from the guidelines to the extent which he did. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Vaughn R. Simpson, 554 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1989)…no showing of extraordinary circumstances creating trauma over and above that already inherent in the.crime. However, the district court certified questions on the validity of the first and fourth reasons and recognized conflict with Sias v. State, 487 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (finding that trauma is not an inherent component of robbery). Since we accepted jurisdiction based on the certified questions, the scope of this review will be confined to these two issues alone. As to the first certified questi…1 / 2
-
Vaughn R. Simpson v. State, 505 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…ugh fear and or emotional trauma are inherent components of the crime of robbery, they were a proper basis for departing in this case because the victim’s trauma was greater than that usually associated with a simple robbery). But see Sias v. State, 487 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (psychological trauma not an inherent component of robbery). •In Mash v. State, 499 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), this court did not reach the issue of whether emotional or psychological trauma is an inherent component of armed…
-
Newland v. State, 508 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ge’s pronouncement, that each reason, standing alone, would have provided sufficient cause to depart from the recommended guidelines sentence, provides ample evidence that the invalid reasons had no affect upon Newland’s sentence. See Sias v. State, 487 So. 2d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we Affirm. . Although the score sheet reflects that none of Newland’s prior convictions were factored into the scoring, the recommended sentence under the guidelines would have been the same for a correctly c…
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
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Hankey v. State, 485 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1986)
- Creed Martin Vanover v. State, 481 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Hagin v. State, 473 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Head v. State, 473 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)