MICHAEL REASE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court cannot impose consecutive sentences beyond the guideline recommendation without stating clear and convincing reasons for departure, even when the underlying convictions were considered in computing the recommended sentence.
A trial court may not sentence a defendant to consecutive sentences exceeding the guideline recommendation without stating clear and convincing reasons for the departure.
[1] When sentencing guidelines recommend a specific sentence and underlying convictions are factored into that recommendation, a trial court cannot impose additional consecut…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRease was convicted of multiple counts arising from the same incident. The sentencing guidelines recommended life imprisonment, but the trial court im…
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 Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition to review Rease v. State, 478 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), in which the district court certified the following question as being of great public importance:
Whether, when the sentencing guidelines recommend a sentence of life imprisonment, the trial court may sentence a defendant to life imprisonment plus sixty years in prison on other counts, to run consecutive to the life sentence, without stating clear and convincing reasons for departing from the guidelines.
Id. at 1151. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. We answer the question in the negative and quash the district court decision. We conclude that the trial court did deviate from the recommended sentence by adding consecutive sentences on other counts arising from the same incident, when those convictions were taken into account in computing the recommended sentence. The trial judge failed to set forth proper reasons for his departure. We adopt and approve the analysis and reasoning of the dissent of Judge Zehmer directed to the specific issue in this case, quash the district court decision, and direct the district court to remand this cause for resentencing.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SHAW, EHRLICH and BARKETT, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (29 total)
-
Robinson v. State, 520 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1988)…n imposing three consecutive life sentences for the three noncapital offenses following a guidelines recommendation of life imprisonment without stating clear and convincing reasons for departure. We find this claim meritorious under Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1986). The record indicates that the trial judge did not believe the imposition of consecutive life sentences was a departure. Accordingly, we vacate the consecutive life sentences and remand for resentencing. Appellant’s final issue for revie…
-
Power v. State, 568 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…and. Convictions AFFIRMED; Sentence REVERSED in part; REMANDED. COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . A thorough review of the record reveals that of the numerous issues raised by Power, only that discussed above has any merit. . See Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1986). . Ch. 88-131, § 6, Laws of Florida. See § 775.084(3), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). . § 775.084(4)(a) Fla.Stat. (1989).…
-
Alphonse Kelly v. State, 552 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1986). Lastly, Kelly contends, and the state concedes, that the trial court erred by imposing a departure sentence of three consecutive life terms without providing written reasons for the departure. Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1986); Kibler v. State, 501 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Upon remand, the trial court must provide written reasons should it choose to impose a departure sentence. See e.g. Higgs v. State, 543 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Mims v. State, 50…
Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rease v. State, 478 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)