MICHAEL THOMAS RILEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Michael Thomas Riley appealed his conviction for two counts of aggravated battery and one count of aggravated assault, challenging the denial of motions for judgment of acquittal and the trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentences, finding the trial court's reason for departing above the guidelines was based on factors already considered in the guideline calculation.
The trial court did not err in denying the motions for judgment of acquittal because sufficient evidence existed to send the case to the jury. However, the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines because the reason given for the departure—the defendant's prior criminal record—was a factor already incorporated into the guidelines calculation, making the departure invalid.
[1] A trial court does not err in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal when the record reveals sufficient evidence to send the case to the jury.
[2] A trial court errs in departing from sentencing guidelines when the sole reason for departure is the defendant's prior criminal record, which has already been factored in…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Our review of the record reveals sufficient evidence to send this case to the jury.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing motions for judgment of acquittal—only sufficient evidence is required, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt at the directed verdict stage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Thomas Riley was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery and one count of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed a 15-year sentence…
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 Judgment Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for two counts of aggravated battery and one count of aggravated assault. The defendant Michael Thomas Riley raises two points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying defense motions for judgment of acquittal, and (2) the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines’ recommended sentence of seven to nine years imprisonment. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
First, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of defense motions for judgment of acquittal. Our review of the record reveals sufficient evidence to send this case to the jury. See Yarborough v. State, 94 Fla. 143, 147, 114 So. 237, 238 (1927); I.R. v. State, 385 So. 2d 686, 687-88 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Denson v. State, 284 So. 2d 452 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).
Second, we find error in the trial court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines’ recommended sentence. The sole reason given for the departure was that
“[t]he defendant has a prior record of violence dating back to 1973, consisting of convictions for felonies; including arson, grand theft, burglary and sale of marijuana. He has demonstrated complete disregard for the laws of society and a sentence as recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines would simply not be sufficient deterrent or punishment for this individual and, therefore; this court finds and determines that it is necessary to go outside the guidelines and impose a sentence accordingly.”
Plainly, the reason given, as stated above, focused primarily on the defendant’s criminal record which was already factored into the defendant’s guidelines sentence. This being so, the reason given for said departure was invalid, and the fifteen-year sentence imposed thereafter must be reversed. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Grooms v. State, 490 So. 2d 1053 (Fla.lst DCA 1986); Riggins v. State, 489 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1st DCA 1986).
The final judgments of convictions under review are affirmed. The sentences under review are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to impose a sentence within the recommended sentencing guidelines.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- I.R. and I.R. v. State, 385 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Yarborough v. State, 94 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1927)
- Riggins v. State, 489 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Denson v. State, 284 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Grooms v. State, 490 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)