JOHNNY LEE NATHAN, 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.
A departure sentence based on both valid and invalid reasons requires remand for resentencing unless the state proves the invalid reasons did not affect the sentence.
Johnny Lee Nathan was convicted of robbery with a weapon and armed burglary of a dwelling. The trial court departed from the recommended guidelines se…
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
HALL, Judge.
Johnny Lee Nathan appeals his judgment and sentences for robbery with a weapon and armed burglary of a dwelling. He raises three points on appeal. We find merit only as to his third contention that the trial court erred in departing from the recommended guidelines sentence by using a checklist in which it checked off impermissible reasons.
- We agree that the majority of the reasons for departure provided by the trial court by way of a checklist are inadequate. However, the two reasons listed as “[e]mo-tional, as well as physical trauma, and parole revocation history” may be valid reasons upon which to justify a departure. Keen v. State, 481 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Where a departure is based on both valid and invalid reasons, unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence, the appellate court must remand the case to the trial court for resentencing. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985); State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1985).
Although the courts have looked with disfavor upon the use of a checklist when stating reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, the fact that such a list was used does not compel reversal. Napoles v. State, 463 So. 2d 478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Alford v. State, 460 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). But, since this departure is grounded on permissible and impermissible reasons and because the state has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the inclusion of invalid reasons would not effect the departure, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Madelyn D. Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ce, a remand for the entry of such a written order would also be a useless act. Burney. Affirmed. CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and LEHAN, JJ., concur. . Multiple violations of probation. See Adams v. State, 490 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1986); Nathan v. State, 489 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).…
-
Hodo v. State, 493 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…tive sentence for reasons that are both valid and invalid. While we find that psychological injury to the victim and consideration for the particular vulnerability of the victim are sufficient reasons for departure in this case, see Nathan v. State, 489 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Hadley v. State, 488 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), we remand for resentencing. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), requires this result where the appellate court is not satisfied that the trial judge would have depar…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1985)
- Alford v. State, 460 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Keithie's Roofing Co. Inc. v. LEE Parks Apts., Inc., 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Benny Lee Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Napoles v. State, 463 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Keen v. State, 481 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)