HERMAN SPEIGHTS, 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.
Herman Speights was convicted of aggravated assault and three counts of sexual battery with great force. While affirming his convictions, the appellate court reversed his sentences because the trial judge departed from the recommended guidelines sentence without adequate justification.
The court affirmed Speights' convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing. The court held that consecutive sentences in addition to a life sentence do exceed a recommended guidelines sentence of life. The trial judge's stated reasons for departure were inadequate: the habitual felon adjudication was not properly documented, and the amount of force was already factored into the recommended guidelines sentence as the charges were for sexual battery with great force.
[1] Consecutive sentences in addition to a life sentence exceed a recommended guidelines sentence of life in prison.
[2] A written statement delineating reasons for departure from a recommended guidelines sentence is sufficient when provided in the space designated for reasons on the senten…
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“consecutive sentences in addition to a life sentence exceed a recommended guidelines sentence of life in prison”
Established the legal principle that consecutive sentences cannot be considered within a single life sentence guideline under Rease v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSpeights was convicted of aggravated assault and three counts of sexual battery with great force. The trial judge imposed consecutive sentences: ten y…
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 Clear And Convincing Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
We affirm appellant’s convictions, finding the two points raised by appellant alleging error in regard to his trial to be without merit.
We reverse and remand, however, for correction of appellant’s sen tences inasmuch as we agree with appellant that the trial court erred in departing from the recommended guidelines sentence without stating sufficient clear and convincing reasons therefor. Appellant was sentenced to ten years for aggravated assault and three life terms for three counts of sexual battery with great force. The trial judge ordered all sentences to run consecutively. The recommended guidelines sentence was life imprisonment.
The state argued, inter alia, that the consecutive life sentences plus the ten-year sentence did not exceed the recommended sentence of life since the actual total sentence to be served could be no more than life. We stayed this appeal pending the determination of that issue by our supreme court. That issue has now been decided in the case of Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1986), where it was held, contrary to the position advanced by the state, that consecutive sentences in addition to a life sentence exceed a recommended guidelines sentence of life in prison.
We next look to see if the trial judge stated adequate reasons for departure. The only reasons for departure are found in a notation on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. While we have not specifically addressed the adequacy of such notations before (Hall v. State, 478 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)), we take the opportunity to do so now.
Our colleagues on the Third and Fifth District Courts of Appeal have held that written notations by the judge on the scoresheet do not suffice as a written order. Watson v. State, 492 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Bauza v. State, 491 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Bouthner v. State, 489 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). But cf. Corum v. State, 484 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll) does not require a separate, written order but only that any sentence outside the guidelines be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for departure.
We find that a requirement of a separate, written order would be contrary to the express provisions of the approved form set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.988 which provides a space at the bottom specifically labeled “reasons for departure.” We, therefore, hold that if adequate reasons are listed by the sentencing judge in that space provided on the approved sentencing guidelines scoresheet, a separate written order delineating reasons for departure is unnecessary.
Under “reasons for departure” the trial judge noted “1. Defendant is an habitual felon” and “2. The amount of force and violence used against the victim.” While this court has held that a proper adjudication of a defendant as a habitual felon is an adequate reason for departure (Ferguson v. State, 481 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); contra Vicknair v. State, 483 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)), it appears that the trial judge in this case did not properly adjudicate appellant as a habitual felon. On each sentencing form for the four offenses of which appellant was convicted there appears under “Special Provisions” a notation to be made if appellant was being adjudicated a habitual felon. None of the sentencing documents include that notation as having been made.
Finally, in regard to the departure reason relating to the amount of force and violence used against the victim, the sexual battery charges of which appellant was convicted were each sexual battery with great force as specified in section 794.-011(3), Florida Statutes (1983). However, on the guidelines scoresheet under “Victim Injury” the sexual batteries are factored in at the “Penetration or Slight Injury” level. In either circumstance, the amount of force and violence causing injury to the victim was already factored in the recommended guidelines sentence and was, therefore, insufficient to support a sentence in excess of the recommended sentence. See Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985).
We, therefore, affirm appellant’s convictions but remand for resentencing within the recommended guidelines in accordance with this opinion.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Hipp v. State, 509 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…the mobilization by her office colleagues, to various vantage points in the building and on the balcony, to locate the victim’s assailant, while she lay in a colleague’s arms, beaten and bleeding. (Record references omitted.) . Speights v. State, 495 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Knight v. State, 501 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). . Mortimer v. State, 490 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Watson v. State, 492 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).…
-
Daughtry v. State, 521 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…this case, our supreme court held that sentencing a defendant to consecutive life terms constituted a departure from a recommended sentence of life under the guidelines, thereby requiring the written statement of reasons. See also Speights v. State, 495 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 501 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986). The trial court here committed error in failing to provide any written reasons for exceeding the recommended sentence as required by Rease. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the tr…
-
Williams v. State, 525 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ules. Joyce v. State, 466 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). . See § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1983). . The trial court properly accomplished that here when it listed the VOP as its reason for departure on Williams’ scoresheet. See Speights v. State, 495 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 501 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986).…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1986)
- Vicknair v. State, 483 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Bauza v. State, 491 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Corum v. State, 484 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Bouthner v. State, 489 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Watson v. State, 492 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Vera v. State, 481 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Ferguson v. State, 481 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Sami Behar v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank AT Sunny Isles, 478 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)