ISIAH RANDOLPH MEDLOCK, JR., 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.
Isiah Medlock was convicted of unlawful sale or delivery of cannabis and possession of cannabis in excess of 20 grams. The trial court imposed a sentencing guideline departure, but the appellate court vacated the departure sentence because the reasons provided were not clear and convincing under Florida law.
The appellate court held that the trial court's first, second, fourth, and fifth reasons for departure were not clear and convincing reasons for departure, and the third reason was invalid because the record evidence did not support it. Accordingly, the departure sentence was vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing.
[1] A defendant's blatant disregard for the laws of society is not a clear and convincing reason for a sentencing guidelines departure.
[2] A defendant's lack of remorse is not a clear and convincing reason for a sentencing guidelines departure.
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“The trial court's first, second, fourth, and fifth reasons are not clear and convincing reasons for departure. The third reason for departure is invalid because the record evidence does not support it.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court failed to provide valid reasons for sentencing departure
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of unlawful sale or delivery of cannabis and possession of cannabis in excess of 20 grams. The trial court imposed a guideline…
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 For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This is another sentencing guidelines departure case.
Defendant was charged, tried, and convicted of unlawful sale or delivery of cannabis 1 and possession of cannabis in excess of 20 grams.2 The trial court imposed a guideline departure sentence for the following summarized reasons:
(1) the defendant’s conduct in the instant offense was in blatant disregard of the laws of society;
(2) the defendant shows no remorse for his conduct;
(3) this offense involved the sale of a controlled substance to inmates of the Correctional Institution;
(4) it is inconceivable to this Court that a non-state prison sanction would be a sufficient deterrent or punishment;
(5) a non-state prison sanction would be insufficient to protect society from the unlawful sale of drugs.
The trial court’s first,3 second,4 fourth,5 and fifth6 reasons are not clear and convincing reasons for departure. The third reason for departure is invalid because the record evidence does not support it.7
Because the reasons for departure given by the trial court are not clear and convincing, we vacate the departure sentence and remand the cause for resentencing to either the recommended guideline sentence or a departure sentence that conforms to the sentencing guidelines (Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701). SENTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.
UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)(2), Fla.Stat. . § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. . Lee v. State, 486 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (disregard for the laws imposed by society and the criminal justice system is an invalid reason for departure).
. Brown v. State, 483 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Parker v. State, 481 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). See also State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986).
. This court has rejected deterrence as a valid reason for departure. See Safford v. State, 488 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Smith v. State, 482 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Nor is the 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 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
. See, e.g., Mullen v. State, 483 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Muff v. State, 490 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…ent is not sufficient” was one of the reasons listed by the trial judge for departing upward from the recommended guideline sentence. This is not a valid reason for departure under Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985). See Medlock v. State, 489 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Safford v. State, 488 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Brown v. State, 487 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Scott v. State, 482 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Clark v. State,…
-
State v. Brady, 517 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…no evidentiary support for either of the two reasons given by the trial court to justify the said departure, see State v. Chesney, 509 So. 2d 380, 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Mitchell v. State, 507 So. 2d 686, 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Medlock v. State, 489 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and the cause is therefore remanded to the trial court with directions (a) to allow the defendant, if he chooses, to withdraw his guilty plea to the charges against him inasmuch as he entered such a plea on the express cond…
-
State v. Valdes, 842 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…in the sentencing process by reducing the subjectivity in interpreting specific offense- and offender-related criteria and in defining their relative importance in the sentencing decision.” [In Re Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines), 489 So. 2d 848,] 849 [ (Fla.1983) ]; Fla. R.Crim. Pro. 3.701(b). In the instant case the trial judge departed from the guidelines based on the defendant’s prior criminal convictions. This was not a proper reason for departing. The guidelines have factored in prio…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1986)
- Mullen v. State, 483 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Bertley S. Pilgrim v. State, 480 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- LEE v. State, 486 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Brown v. State, 483 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Safford v. State, 488 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Parker v. State, 481 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Smith v. State, 482 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Elvis Nathaniel Clark v. State, 481 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)