ALBERT R. GROOMS, 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 trial court cannot depart from sentencing guidelines based on a defendant's prior criminal record if that record has already been factored into the guidelines score.
Albert Grooms was sentenced to twelve years' incarceration for robbery while armed, exceeding the recommended seven to nine years under the sentencing…
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
ZEHMER, Judge.
Appellant, Albert R. Grooms, was charged with robbery while armed, two counts of grand theft, and display of a weapon during a felony stemming from an October 23, 1984, incident. Grooms pled guilty to a single count of robbery while armed with a firearm, and a sentencing hearing was held February 25, 1985. The recommended sentence in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet was seven to nine years’ incarceration. Grooms was sentenced to twelve years’ incarceration based on the following reasons for departure:
1. Defendant’s prior history of theft and assault establishes a pattern of continuing conduct that renders him a continuing and serious threat to the community.
2. The court has considered the juvenile record of defendant, not just in the computation of points, but in consideration of the aggravation factors.
3. Defendant has an extensive record as a juvenile of theft-related offenses and burglaries.
4. Defendant’s prior record shows that probation is an ineffective alternative in deterring him from any further criminal activity.
5. Defendant has been committed to state prison on two prior occasions.
Grooms argues that the trial court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines was based on impermissible reasons. We agree.
The primary focus of all five reasons is appellant’s prior convictions, which were factored in computing appellant’s guidelines score. In Riggins v. State, 489 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), we held that “when the primary focus of the trial court’s reason for departure is the defendant’s prior criminal record, even though framed in terms of the extent or content of the criminal record, the reason is invalid if the prior convictions have already been factored into the defendant’s guideline score.” Accordingly, this case is remanded for resentencing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986); State v. Davis, 477 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1985); Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Scott v. State, 492 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Bailey v. State, 492 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Grooms v. State, 490 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Since the reasons given by the trial court for departure are invalid, the conviction is affirmed but the sentence is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing. ZEHMER, J„ and VICTOR CAWTHON, Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Riley v. State, 495 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…eady factored into the defendant’s guidelines sentence. This being so, the reason given for said departure was invalid, and the fifteen-year sentence imposed thereafter must be reversed. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Grooms v. State, 490 So. 2d 1053 (Fla.lst DCA 1986); Riggins v. State, 489 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1st DCA 1986). The final judgments of convictions under review are affirmed. The sentences under review are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to impose a…
Authorities Cited
- Riggins v. State, 489 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)