CHARLES PETER VANTASSELL, 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.
A trial court's statement that any one of the given reasons would suffice for departure, even if some reasons are invalid, satisfies the standard for departure if at least one valid reason exists.
[1] A trial court may depart from recommended sentencing guidelines when the victim suffers extensive physical injuries due to the defendant's excessive force.
[2] A trial court may depart from recommended sentencing guidelines when the defendant's sexual abuse of the victim was an ongoing occurrence over a significant period.
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 intelligenceVanTassell was convicted of sexual battery. The trial court departed from the recommended guidelines sentence, citing multiple reasons, some valid and…
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 Valid Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
VanTassell appeals the trial court’s departure from the recommended guidelines sentence. We affirm.
VanTassell was convicted of, and sentenced for, sexual battery on a person over the age of 11 years by a person in a position of familial authority. § 794.011(4)(e), Fla.Stat. (1983). The trial court stated both valid and invalid reasons for departure. The reasons may be summarized as follows:
(1.) The recommended guidelines sentence is insufficient to provide adequate retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation.
(2.) VanTassell’s use of excessive force resulted in the victim sustaining extensive physical injuries.
(3.) The victim suffered emotional and psychological trauma.
(4.) The victim was particularly vulnerable because VanTassell was her stepfather and occupied a position of trust in the household.
(5.) VanTassell’s sexual abuse of the victim was an ongoing occurrence over the previous two years.
(6.) One instance of sexual abuse occurred in a public taxicab and was witnessed by the driver. (7.) VanTassell poses a threat to society and the public at large.
(8.) VanTassell’s conduct constituted flagrant disregard for the victim’s safety, welfare and personal rights.
Reasons (2.), (5.) and (8.) are valid and the others are invalid. The court also stated, both at the sentencing hearing and in its written statement of reasons for departure, that any one of the cited reasons would be sufficient for the court to depart. Therefore, as we have done in the previous cases Griffis v. State, 497 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and Reickman v. State, 497 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) we certify the following question to be one of great public importance:
DOES A TRIAL COURT’S STATEMENT, MADE AT THE TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, THAT IT WOULD DEPART FOR ANY ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BOTH VALID AND INVALID REASONS ARE FOUND ON REVIEW, SATISFY THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN ALBRITTON V STATE?
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vantassell v. State, 512 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1987)…BARKETT, Justice. We have for review VanTassell v. State, 498 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in which the district court certified the following as a question of great public importance: DOES A TRIAL COURT’S STATEMENT, MADE AT THE TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, THAT IT WOULD DEPART FOR ANY ONE OF THE…
-
Stowers v. State, 534 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1988)…KOGAN, Justice. We have for review Stowers v. State, 504 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), in which the district court certified the same question framed in VanTassell v. State, 498 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986): DOES A TRIAL COURT’S STATEMENT, MADE AT THE TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, THAT IT WOULD DEPART FOR ANY ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BOTH VALID AND INVALID REASONS ARE FOUND ON REVIEW, SATI…
-
Stowers v. State, 541 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…t would depart on the basis of any one of the reasons given, we simply affirmed without an Albritton analysis (Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), and certified to the Florida Supreme Court the same question framed in VanTassell v. State, 498 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986): DOES A TRIAL COURT’S STATEMENT, MADE AT THE TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING'1 GUIDELINES, THAT IT WOULD DEPART FOR ANY ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BOTH VALID AND INVALID REASONS ARE FOUND ON REVIEW, SA…
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
- Griffis v. State, 497 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Reichman v. State, 497 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)