BERNARD PERTEE, 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.
Court reversed sentences imposed for forgery, uttering, and grand theft because the trial court relied on invalid reasons for departing upward from sentencing guidelines.
A trial court cannot depart upward from sentencing guidelines based on prior criminal history, pattern of conduct, failure of prior probation, or unconvicted criminal conduct.
[1] Prior criminal history and pattern of criminal conduct cannot support upward departure from sentencing guidelines.
[2] Unconvicted criminal conduct, such as absconding while awaiting sentencing, cannot support upward departure from sentencing guidelines.
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 intelligenceAppellant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of forgery, uttering worthless checks, and grand theft. The trial court imposed sentences exceeding the gu…
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 Pattern Of Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from judgments and sentences entered upon appellant’s pleas of guilty to multiple charges of forgery, uttering, passing worthless checks and grand theft. We affirm the convictions, but reverse the sentences and remand.
The trial court’s reasons for departing from the recommended guidelines sentence were as follows:
1) The Defendant has an extensive record and history of obtaining money by writing worthless checks which establishes a pattern of conduct for over eleven years of continuous and serious threat to the community.
2) The Defendant has established a pattern of committing new crimes while other criminal charges are pending against him.
3) Probation has not been a successful deterrent to the Defendant.
4) The Defendant absconded while awaiting sentencing.
None of the reasons stated are valid permissible reasons for imposing a sentence exceeding the sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines. The first two reasons given are factually based on appellant’s prior record, and therefore cannot support departure. Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla.1986); Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985). Reason four relates to a crime for which appellant has not been convicted and thus is a reason prohibited by the guidelines themselves. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11); State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986). The third reason is also invalid because the recommended guidelines sentence calls for only incarceration and not probation. Williams v. State, 490 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.
JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 490 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)