ALPHONSO LEWIS, 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 affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial judge failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for departing from the recommended guidelines sentence.
Appellant was convicted of second degree murder. The trial judge departed from the recommended guidelines sentence, providing five reasons. Appellant …
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 Guidelines Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Of the several issues raised in this appeal from a conviction and sentence for second degree murder, only those involving sentencing merit discussion. We affirm the conviction, but remand for resentencing.
Appellant asserts that the judge did not prepare his own reasons for departure from the recommended guidelines sentence, but simply copied the reasons submitted by the prosecutor, and that this constitutes reversible error. In Leopard v. State, 491 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), this court rejected a similar claim, but emphasized the responsibility of the trial judge to provide clear and concise reasons for departure after careful consideration of the appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors, noting that this duty is not met by a mere “rubber stamp” by the trial judge of reasons articulated by one of the parties, without careful consideration of each reason.
Appellant also asserts that the trial judge failed to state clear and convincing reasons for departure. The trial court listed five reasons for departure, of which only the first two, involving the manner in which the murder was carried out and the vulnerability of the elderly victim, are permissible. Under Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), the appellate court is required to remand for resentencing in such circumstances unless it is able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial judge would have departed from the recommended sentence to the extent he did without consideration of the impermissible reasons and solely on the basis of the permissible reasons. Nixon v. State, 494 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We are unable to make such a determination in this case.
The conviction is AFFIRMED, the sentence is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for resentencing.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 575 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1991)…unds, 536 So. 2d 189 (Fla.1988); Young v. State, 502 So. 2d 1347 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); Roberts v. State, 500 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Williams v. State, 497 So. 2d 716 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), review denied, 506 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1987); Lewis v. State, 496 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Mullen v. State, 483 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Brown v. State, 480 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Dickey v. State, 458 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).…
-
Laberge v. State, 508 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…NTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED. COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur. . Because the particular vulnerability of children is covered by section 800.04, that vulnerability is not a valid reason for departure as when the victim is elderly. See Lewis v. State, 496 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hadley v. State, 488 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Moore v. State, 468 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
-
Sammie Lee Harris v. State, 580 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ington, 104 S.Ct. at 2068.8 We note that petitioner’s codefendant, Alphonso Lewis, at whose trial for the same offense instructions on justifiable and excusable homicide were given, was nevertheless convicted of second-degree murder. Lewis v. State, 496 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We can conceive of no theory upon which the result in petitioner’s trial, or in a new trial with the same evidence, could reasonably be expected to be any different. The petition for habeas corpus is DENIED. SHIVERS, C.J., and…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Leopard v. State, 491 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Job Elton Nixon v. State, 494 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)