JAMES KELVIN PARSONS, 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.
James Parsons appeals his convictions for armed burglary and sexual battery, challenging both his convictions and sentences. The court affirms the convictions but reverses and remands for resentencing because the trial court's reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines were largely invalid under Florida law.
The court held that four of the five reasons given by the trial court for departure from the guidelines were invalid: prior convictions and facts regarding them, amount of force threatened, psychological trauma to the victim (unsupported by the record), and pattern of criminal conduct. Only the probation violation reason was addressed, and it too was invalid because probation was never revoked.
[1] Crimes already calculated into sentencing guidelines may not be used as a basis for departure from those guidelines.
[2] The use or threat to use a deadly weapon during the commission of an offense is a factor embodied within the offense and does not constitute a valid reason for 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“crimes which have already been calculated into the guidelines may not be used as a basis for departure”
Establishes the fundamental principle that factors already factored into the sentencing guidelines scoresheet cannot justify departures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParsons was charged with two counts of armed burglary, two counts of sexual battery, and one count of petit theft. A jury found him guilty of armed bu…
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 Psychological Trauma cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from the judgment and sentences resulting from convictions for one count of armed burglary and one count of sexual battery. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We find error only in regard to the second issue appellant raises on this appeal pertaining to the validity of those reasons given by the trial court for departing from the sentencing guidelines.
Appellant was charged by information with two counts of armed burglary (Counts I and IV), two counts of sexual battery (Counts II and V), and one count of petit theft (Count III). A jury trial was held. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to Counts IV and V. A guidelines scoresheet was prepared showing a presumptive sentence of seventeen to twenty-two years imprisonment. However, the trial court departed from the guidelines and sentenced appellant to life imprisonment for each conviction, to run consecutively.
We shall address the court’s written reasons for departure:
(1) Prior convictions and facts regarding prior convictions. The trial court cited appellant’s past convictions as a reason for departure. Additionally, the court listed circumstances pertaining to the prior convictions as a basis for departure. These reasons for departure are invalid since crimes which have already been calculated into the guidelines may not be used as a basis for departure. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); McCray v. State, 488 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Dawkins v. State, 487 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
(2) Amount of force threatened. The trial court noted that appellant threatened to kill the victim and was armed with a knife at the time of the incident. The use or threat to use a deadly weapon is a factor embodied in the offense and, therefore, does not constitute a valid reason for departure. State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1986); Allen v. State, 476 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Cannada v. State, 472 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
(3) Psychological trauma to victim. Psychological trauma has been found to be a valid reason for departure. Tompkins v. State, 483 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Ochoa v. State, 476 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). However, we find no support in the record for the conclusion that the victim sustained substantial or unusual psychological or emotional trauma. Accordingly, this is an invalid reason for departure. See also Burgess v. State, 491 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Tompkins, supra.
(4) Pattern of criminal conduct. The trial court focused on appellant’s prior criminal history, specifically, the circumstances of prior offenses for which appellant was convicted, as well as the circumstances of the instant offense, in order to demonstrate a pattern of criminal conduct. This is not a proper reason for departure since such reason is based factually on appellant’s prior convictions. Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla.1986); Middleton v. State, 489 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Hendrix.
(5) Probation violations. Sentences imposed after a revocation of probation may be increased to the next higher cell without requiring a written reason for departure. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14). In the instant case, although appellant was on probation at the time he committed the offenses in issue, appellant’s probation was never revoked. Accordingly, this was an invalid reason for departure since legal constraint was already factored into the guidelines scoresheet. Hendrix.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm appellant’s convictions but vacate his sentences. We remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion and the guidelines score-sheet.
DANAHY, C.J., and GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bass v. State, 496 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…r departure. See Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Baker v. State, (Fla. 1st DCA 493 So. 2d 515, 1986); see also, Riggins v. State, 489 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Dorado v. State, 482 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Parsons v. State, 491 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Second, the court found significant the number of crimes appellant had been arrested for since May, 1983. Prior arrests may not be used to depart from the guidelines when there has been no finding of guilt as a result of the arr…
-
McINTYRE v. State, 539 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…or departure, that McIntyre was out on bond at the time of the offense, is also invalid because a defendant’s legal status is already calculated into the sentencing guidelines and may not be used again as a basis for departure. See Parsons v. State, 491 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). . The guideline sentence is nine-to-twelve years of imprisonment.…
-
Wimmer v. State, 508 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ed by the victim in this case was not extraordinary or unusual in the context of the offense of false imprisonment with a weapon. See Casteel v. State, 498 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1986); Sarria v. State, 501 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Parsons v. State, 491 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Further, insufficiency of the guidelines sentence, as the state concedes, is not a clear and convincing reason for departure. See Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla.1986). Because neither of the trial court’s reasons for d…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1986)
- Tompkins v. State, 483 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Ochoa v. State, 476 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Quintin Stacey Allen v. State, 476 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Cannada v. State, 472 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Dawkins v. State, 487 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Middleton v. State, 489 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- McCRAY v. State, 488 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)