RONNIE EUGENE CHAPLIN 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.
Chaplin appealed his sentencing for armed robbery, challenging both the trial court's reasons for departing from Florida's sentencing guidelines and whether the State could argue aggravating circumstances at resentencing. The court affirmed the 12-year sentence, finding that valid reasons supported the departure and that the trial judge properly had discretion to consider aggravating factors regardless of whether the State raised them.
The court affirmed the departure sentence because two of the three stated reasons were valid and the transcript showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the same sentence would have been imposed regardless of the one invalid reason. The court also held that trial judges have discretion to consider aggravating factors at sentencing regardless of whether the State argues them.
[1] A trial court may depart from sentencing guidelines when clear and convincing reasons support the departure.
[2] A pattern of escalating new crimes can be a valid reason for departing from sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Prior criminal records are scored in computing the guidelines sentence and thus may not be used as a grounds for departure.”
Establishes why the third departure reason was invalid under sentencing guidelines law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChaplin was convicted of two counts of armed robbery with a firearm and initially sentenced to 12 years concurrent under the sentencing guidelines. On…
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 Clear And Convincing Reasons cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
In this sentencing guidelines appeal, Chaplin contends the reasons given by the trial court for departing from the guidelines presumptive sentence are not clear and convincing and the trial court erred in allowing the State to argue aggravating circumstances at his resentencing when they were not raised at the original sentencing hearing. We disagree and affirm.
Chaplin was found guilty of two separate counts of armed robbery with a firearm. Pursuant to his election to be sentenced under the guidelines, a category 3 score-sheet was prepared which showed a recommended sentence of 9-12 years incarceration. Based upon this, the trial court sentenced Chaplin to a term of 12 years on each of the counts of armed robbery to run concurrently.
Chaplin’s sentences and convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. See, Chaplin v. State, 449 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Thereafter, Chaplin filed a motion for post-conviction relief asserting various scoring errors. This court on 13 August 1985 vacated his sentence and remanded the cause to the trial court, finding that Chaplin’s guidelines scoresheet erroneously included points for a prior category 3 offense. See, Chaplin v. State, 473 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
At the resentencing hearing, a new scoresheet was prepared which showed a recommended sentence range of 7-9 years. Over objection, the State argued aggravating circumstances for the court to consider in sentencing Chaplin outside the presumptive range. The trial court then decided to depart from the guidelines and sentenced Chaplin to a term of 12 years. In support of his decision to depart, the trial judge submitted the following reasons in writing:
(1) Defendant has a pattern of escalating new crimes.
(2) Recommended sentence not sufficient for retribution, rehabilitation or deterrence.
(3) Defendant has not demonstrated the ability to govern himself by the laws of the state.
Where the record supports it, the first reason of “a pattern of escalating new crimes” has been upheld as valid. Simmons v. State, 483 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Likewise, the second reason has repeatedly been upheld as valid. Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). However, we find the third justifiction must be found invalid because its only basis in the record is Chaplin’s prior criminal record. Prior criminal records are scored in computing the guidelines sentence and thus may not be used as a grounds for departure. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985).
Although both valid and invalid reasons were relied upon by the trial court, looking to the transcript of the sentencing proceeding it appears to this Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the same sentence would have been imposed despite the one invalid reason given. See, Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). Therefore, we affirm the departure sentence. Chaplin’s second issue is without merit. At sentencing a trial judge has the discretion to sentence in the manner he or she chooses, which necessarily includes deviating from the guidelines when there are clear and convincing reasons to do so. The fact that the State does or does not argue in favor of aggravating a sentence is irrelevant.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Merchant v. State, 509 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1987)…for appeal.” 487 So. 2d at 1046. . We express no opinion on the appropriate sentence which should be imposed in this case. We point out only that a departure sentence must be supported by written, clear and convincing reasons. See Chaplin v. State, 488 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1986).…
-
Mitchell v. State, 507 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…e do not find in this record the special circumstances relied on in Booker and McCoy. A defendant’s escalating pattern of criminal conduct has, where supported by the record, also been upheld as a valid reason for departure. E.g., Chaplin v. State, 488 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1986). Here, however, there is no evidence showing that appellant has engaged in an escalating pattern of conduct. All of appellant’s convictions are for third degree felonies. Appellant’s juvenile…
-
Isiah Randolph Medlock, Jr. v. State, 489 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…he lower court’s belief that the guideline sentence would be insufficient punishment a proper reason for departure. Safford, 488 So. 2d at 142; Wilson, 490 So. 2d at 1361. Clark v. State, 481 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). But see Chaplin v. State, 488 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (recommended sentence not sufficient for retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence a valid reason). . Wilson, 490 So. 2d at 1361. See also Roberson v. State, 483 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Pilgrim v. State, 480 So. 2d 688…
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)
- Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Simmons v. State, 483 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Chaplin v. State, 473 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Faheem Saleem Rasheed v. State, 449 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Chaplin v. State, 449 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)