LIONEL CAMPOS, 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.
Lionel Campos appeals his sentencing for multiple robbery and assault convictions, challenging both the trial court's departure from Florida's sentencing guidelines and the severity of the departure. The appellate court finds the departure inadequately justified and excessively drastic, remanding for reconsideration.
The trial court's sentencing departure was inadequately justified and excessively drastic. The court must provide separate, clearly identified grounds for any departure from the guidelines, and several factors cited by the trial judge (premeditation, possession of a loaded firearm, amount of cash stolen, and emotional trauma to victims) are invalid as departure grounds under controlling precedent.
[1] A trial court's written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines must clearly list the separate grounds relied upon for departure.
[2] Premeditation is not a valid ground for departing from sentencing guidelines if it is an element already factored into the guidelines.
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“it is imperative in any event for the trial judge to list the separate grounds relied upon for departure”
Establishes the requirement that sentencing courts must clearly identify and list specific grounds for departing from guidelines, not merely provide narrative descriptions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCampos was convicted of four counts of robbery with a firearm, two counts of shooting into an occupied vehicle, eight counts of aggravated assault, an…
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 Sentencing Guidelines Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is another appeal to review a departure from the sentencing guidelines and the extent of the departure.
Appellant was convicted on four counts of robbery with a firearm, two counts of shooting into an occupied vehicle, eight counts of aggravated assault and four counts of simple assault. A sentencing scoresheet was prepared and the recommended sentence was five and one-half to seven years’ imprisonment. The sentence imposed was life imprisonment for each count of robbery, fifteen years’ imprisonment for each count of shooting at an occupied vehicle, five years’ imprisonment for each count of aggravated assault, and sixty days in jail for each count of simple assault, all to run concurrently.
The trial judge reduced his reasons to writing; however, he did so in narrative form so that it is difficult for this court to determine which portions of the narrative he relied upon for departure and which portions are simply descriptive of the scenario. The narrative is set forth hereafter:
During this well-planned bank robbery, this defendant was disguised and armed with a loaded firearm which was openly displayed in a life-threatening way. The numerous bank employees and customers were terrorized and placed in fear, although not physically harmed. After leaving the bank with approximately $26,704 cash, the two defendants travelled south on 1-95. As the police took up pursuit, the co-defendant drove the getaway car at speeds over 100 miles per hour in heavy traffic. The defendant (Campos) fired several rounds from an Uzi semi-automatic rifle in the direction of the pursuing police cars and toward a police officer standing on an overpass, endangering not only the police officers but also the lives of many other innocent people travelling on 1-95 in Palm Beach County. It was a miracle that no one was injured during the bank robbery and shoot out that occurred during the high speed chase.
The high speed chase culminated in Broward County, but the events occurring in that county were not considered by this court as factors in the sentences imposed herein. The defendant was sentenced for those events by the Circuit Court in Broward County.
(R. 1171). While a narrative description of the crime and attendant circumstances may be helpful, we think it is imperative in any event for the trial judge to list the separate grounds relied upon for departure.
It is not clear whether the court is using premeditation as a ground for departure byostating the bank robbery was well-planned. Premeditation would not be a valid reason for departure because that element of the crime is already factored into the guidelines. Knowlton v. State, 466 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet for rev. den. 476 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1985).
The same might be said of possession of a loaded firearm in the commission of the robberies. Bowdoin v. State, 464 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
The amount of cash stolen is not a valid ground for departure under Knowlton. On the other hand, in Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the court held that the amount of drugs can be used for departing and in Johnson v. State, 462 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the court held the amount of money taken and placing others in danger are sufficient reasons to depart. The emotional trauma of the victims is not a valid ground where it is by statutory definition an inherent component of the crime for which the defendant was convicted. State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1986); Knowlton, 466 So. 2d at 280; Tompkins v. State, 483 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Appellant also attacks the sentence as an excessive departure in any event. In view of the guidelines sentence, even if departure is warranted, we agree the departure was too drastic. Accordingly, we remand the cause to the trial court with the request that it reconsider the sentence, whether or not it should depart from the guidelines, and, if so, the separate grounds therefor in the light of the current case law and, if it determines to depart from the guidelines, that it reconsider the extent of the departure.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 509 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ional trauma not significantly different from that usually associated with the components of the crime is not a clear and convincing reason to depart in the absence of a special trauma. Grant v. State, — So. 2d —(Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Campos v. State, 488 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Knowlton v. State, 466 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1985). A victim’s age may be a valid consideration in departing. See Ball v. State, 487 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 497 So. 2d 1217…
-
Nivaldo Echevarria v. State, 492 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…setting forth reasons for departure gives rise to speculation as to which portion of the statement supported the trial court’s ruling. The trial judge should clearly list the separate grounds upon which departure is predicated. See Campos v. State, 488 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). For these reasons, we reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence Echevarria within appropriate sentencing guidelines. . During the pendency of this appeal, the state requested and was granted relinquishment of this c…
-
Lumpkin v. State, 510 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…6); Steiner v. State, 469 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1985). Likewise, premeditation is an inherent element of armed robbery and is, therefore, not a clear and convincing reason for upward departure. Campos v. State, 488 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Knowlton v. State, 466 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1985); Carney v. State, 458 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), aff'd, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1985). The third reason given for departure, namely, psy…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1986)
- Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Knowlton v. State, 466 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Tompkins v. State, 483 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Bowdoin v. State, 464 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Johnson v. State, 462 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)