MIKE ANTHONY FLOYD, 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 the departure sentences were validly based on the defendant's escalating criminal behavior and the clear inappropriateness of a non-state prison sanction.
Floyd was sentenced to concurrent ten and five year sentences for two burglaries, a departure from the presumptive non-state prison sanction under the…
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 Presumptive Sentence Range cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Floyd appeals his concurrent ten and five year sentences imposed for two burglaries because they are a seven-cell “departure” from the presumptive sentence range of any non-state prison sanction under the guidelines.1 This is the second time the trial judge has imposed these same sentences. On March 5, 1986, we granted the state’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction for the trial court to reconsider its reasons for departure. The reason the trial judge gave for adhering to the sentences following our remand is that Floyd’s criminal record indicates his criminal behavior is escalating as to the frequency and seriousness of the offenses.
The record shows that since 1980 Floyd has committed more crimes than in the five years prior to that date, and they have progressed from misdemeanors and petit theft to burglaries and aggravated assault. Further, Floyd served time in the Department of Corrections and county jail, which apparently had no deterring effect on his behavior. The presumptive sentence was any nonstate prison sanction.
We affirm the departure sentences as validly based on Floyd’s escalating pattern of criminal behavior
and the clear inappropriateness of a nonstate prison sanction to punish or deter in this case. See Riggins v. State, 477 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Further, we find no clear abuse of discretion regarding the extent of the “departure” for the sentences in this case.3
AFFIRMED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents without opinion.
. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701.d.ll.
. See Smith v. State, 480 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1986); Johnson v. State, 477 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), review denied, 486 So. 2d 596 (Fla.1986); May v. State, 475 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1986).
. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Onelio Silveira v. State, 525 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…as actually used a weapon against a person. This evidences an escalating pattern of criminal activity, a valid ground for departure under Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1986); Pittman v. State, 492 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Floyd v. State, 495 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); and Newland v. State, 508 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We also note that it is appropriate to consider the departure reasons collectively to determine whether the departure is valid under the theory in Williams, supra, which v…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Smith v. State, 480 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Jock Everett Riggins v. State, 477 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Johnson v. State, 477 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- MAY v. State, 475 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)