ROBERT FRANKLIN WILSON, 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.
Robert Wilson appeals his departure sentence of ten years imprisonment for robbery with a firearm, arguing the trial judge relied on invalid reasons for departing upward from the guideline sentence of 4.5-5.5 years. The appellate court vacates the sentence and remands for resentencing because the trial judge failed to make an explicit statement that the departure would have been imposed absent the invalid reasons.
The departure sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for resentencing. Under Albritton v. State, when invalid reasons are given for a departure sentence, reversal is required unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have imposed the departure sentence even without the invalid reasons. The trial judge's failure to make an explicit statement that the same sentence would have been imposed absent the invalid reasons requires reversal.
[1] A departure sentence must be reversed if the trial court assigns one or more invalid reasons for departure, unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the tri…
[2] The State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a departure sentence would have been imposed absent invalid reasons cited by the trial court.
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“Under Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), the assigning of one or more invalid reasons for a departure requires reversal unless the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have imposed the departure sentence even in the absence of the invalid reasons.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing departure sentences based on invalid reasons
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson was convicted of robbery with a firearm under Florida Statute §812.13(2)(a). He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, which constituted an u…
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 Firearm Discharge cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
The defendant appeals the imposed sentence which was a departure from the recommended guidelines sentence. He was convicted of robbery with a firearm (§ 812.-13(2)(a), Fla.Stat.), and sentenced to ten years imprisonment, an upward departure from the recommended guideline sentence of four and one-half to five and one-half years.
The trial judge filed a written statement setting forth six reasons for departure in conformance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll). The listed reasons were:
1. The defendant’s conduct and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the particular offenses for which he is sentenced persuade the Court that the guideline recommendation range is not commensurate with the severity of the offense determined by the Legislature of the State of Florida, because of the violent nature of the offense; and the fact that a firearm was discharged, during the commission of the offense placing innocent people in extreme danger. 2. That while the victim’s injury may have been slight, that both victims of the ABC store suffered shock and extreme fear as a result of the defendant’s actions.
3. The offenses for which the defendant is being sentenced were committed in a calculated manner without pretense of moral or legal justification.
4. Protection of the public requires that the defendant be incarcerated for a term in excess of that provided by the Florida sentencing guidelines.
5. That the defendant remaining at liberty and not being sentenced in excess of the sentencing guidelines would subject the public of the State of Florida to extreme risk.
6.The Florida sentencing guideline recommendation is insufficient for retribution, deterrent [sic] or rehabilitation and for public safety.
The first and second reasons are questionable. However, it is not necessary on this appeal to determine their validity because such a determination is not dispositive. The last four reasons given are clearly invalid.1 Under Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), the assigning of one or more invalid reasons for a departure requires reversal unless the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have imposed the departure sentence even in the absence of the invalid reasons.
The sentencing judge made no explicit and clear statement that the same sentence would have been imposed absent these invalid reasons. The extreme difficulty of the State showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial judge would have imposed the same departure sentence in the absence of invalid reasons given has been pointed out in Brown v. State, 481 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
The departure sentence is vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing.
SENTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.
COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . See Burch v. State, 462 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 476 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1985). See also Moore v. State, 483 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Smith v. State, 479 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Scurry v. State, 472 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Williams v. State, 471 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Alford v. State, 460 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Brooks v. State, 456 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), approved, 476 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. State, 508 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 1987)…EHRLICH, Justice. We have for review Scott v. State, 492 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), a sentencing guideline decision which the First District Court of Appeal certified as being in conflict with Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), on the question of whether a trial court’s written finding that a recommended guidelines sentence “is insufficient for retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and for the safety of the public,” 492 So. 2d at 449, is a clear and…
-
Elvin Vega v. State, 498 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…the trial court’s order sentencing Vega as a youthful offender prove to be clear and convincing reasons for departure as well, that is sufficient. Reasons 2 and 3 can be dealt with easily as impermissible reasons for departure. See Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (protection of the public and guideline recommendation seen as being inadequate for rehabilitation and deterrence insufficient reasons for departure). Reason number one, victim injury, also presents what should be a simple questi…
-
Montgomery v. State, 489 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…e, 473 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Reason number 4 is tantamount to the statement that there is no legal or moral justification for the commission of the offense, and that has been held to be an insufficient reason for departure. Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Reason number 3 cannot be considered as clear and convincing because a sentence within the guidelines could have provided for punishment by incarceration, and the court also had it within its power to impose a period of probati…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Burch v. State, 462 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Brooks v. State, 456 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Alphonso Prosperty Smith v. State, 479 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Alford v. State, 460 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Scurry v. State, 472 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- State v. Burch, 476 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1985)
- Brooks v. State, 476 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1985)
- Brown v. State, 481 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)