PHILLIP LEWIS BROOMHEAD, 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 trial judge improperly departed from the recommended guideline sentence based on invalid reasons.
[1] A trial court may not depart from recommended guideline sentences based on the defendant's prior record.
[2] Protection of the victim is an invalid basis for a departure from recommended guideline sentences.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillip Broomhead was convicted of trespass, tampering with a witness, and threatening a witness. The trial court departed from the recommended guidel…
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 Departure From Recommended Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Defendant Phillip Broomhead was convicted and sentenced for commission of three offenses. On appeal he raises one point: that the trial judge improperly departed from the recommended guideline sentence. We reverse and remand for re-sentencing.
The defendant was convicted of trespass, tampering with a witness, and threatening a witness. The trial court departed from the recommended guideline sentence of any nonstate prison sanction. The defendant was sentenced to one year on the trespass count, two years on the tampering with a witness count, and two years on the threatening a witness count. All three sentences were to run concurrently and be followed by three years’ probation. The court gave the following reasons for departure: “Similar crimes committed in past, prior violation of probation less than two months after committing same crime — protection of victim, total disregard of prior court directions.”
The court’s first two reasons, similar crimes committed in the past and violation of a prior probation, are invalid because they are based on the defendant’s prior record. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985).
The court’s third reason, protection of the victim, is an invalid basis for departure. Williams v. State, 493 So. 2d 48 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); Martinez-Diaz v. State, 484 So. 2d 633 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). Moreover, this reason is based on speculation that the defendant will again engage in criminal conduct, which is likewise an invalid reason for departure. Lindsey v. State, 453 So. 2d 485 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). The court’s final reason, total disregard of prior court directions, is an invalid basis for departure because it involves factors relating to the instant offenses for which convictions have not been obtained. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll); see Santiago v. State, 478 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1985).
We affirm the defendant’s convictions. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coleman v. State, 515 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…isonment in the state correctional system.” Young v. State, 455 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), affirmed, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1985). In addition, speculating on possible future violence or criminal conduct is impermissible. Broomhead v. State, 497 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Young v. State, 489 So. 2d 199, 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Reason # 2 is valid. Jakubowski v. State, 494 So. 2d 277, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Reason # 3 is a restatement of reason # 2 and therefore valid. Reason # 4 is a concl…
-
Powell v. State, 515 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…r reasons contained herein. It further evidences a refusal to learn from past mistakes and an ability [sic] to be rehabilitated. The first reason, “defendant poses a future danger to society,” is an invalid ground for departure. Broomhead v. State, 497 So. 2d 734 (Pla. 2d DCA 1986); Campbell v. State, 486 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Lindsey v. State, 453 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The other reasons, in the context of this case, are, however, valid grounds for departure. While the trial court’s second…
-
Whitaker v. State, 524 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…2nd DCA 1986); Gales v. State, 515 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The second reason is also invalid. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Whitehead v. State, supra; Montalvo v. State, 520 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987); Broomhead v. State, 497 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986); Coleman v. State, 515 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987); Coleman v. State, 521 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1988). The sentence is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing within the guidelines…
Authorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Lindsey v. State, 453 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Aniceto P. Santiago v. State, 478 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1985)
- Todd v. State, 478 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1985)
- Martinez-Diaz v. State, 484 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Williams v. State, 493 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)