ROOSEVELT ANDERSON, 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.
The court held that a defendant properly classified as a habitual offender provides a clear and convincing reason for departure from sentencing guidelines, making other reasons irrelevant.
Anderson was convicted of armed burglary and received a presumptive sentence under the guidelines. The trial court departed from the guidelines and 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 Clear and Convincing cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Anderson appeals from a sentence imposed following a conviction for armed burglary of a dwelling. He contends the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines. We disagree and affirm.
On 21 September 1984, Anderson was found guilty by a jury of committing armed burglary of a dwelling. Under the sentencing guidelines, Anderson received a presumptive sentence of four and one-half to five and one-half years. The trial court, however, sentenced him to 15 years incarceration.
In this regard, the trial judge entered an order classifying Anderson as a habitual offender pursuant to Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1983), and “checked” off five reasons for the departure on the guidelines scoresheet.
Anderson asserts that none of the reasons advanced by the trial court for departure from the guidelines are clear and convincing, and thus his sentence must be reversed. However, as was stated in Whitehead v. State, 467 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), whether the reasons supplied for deviating from the guidelines are valid or not is irrelevant when a defendant is properly classified as a habitual offender pursuant to Section 775.084(l)(a)(2). This fact alone is a clear and convincing reason for departure from the guidelines.
Affirmed.
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Massard v. State, 501 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…e trial court as a basis for departure from the sentencing guidelines, two of the four reasons were proper: 1. Appellant was an habitual felony offender. We hold that this is a proper reason for departure from the guidelines. See Anderson v. State, 489 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hale v. State, 490 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). But see Vicknair v. State, 483 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). 2. It was necessary to remove appellant from society as he presented a clear and present danger thereto. This is e…
Authorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 467 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)