MICHAEL CARNEGIE, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a departure sentence for burglary where the trial court failed to provide valid legal reasons for exceeding the sentencing guidelines. The court held that five purported justifications—including conduct for which the defendant was acquitted, lack of remorse, and prior criminal history already factored into the guidelines—were all improper bases for departure.
The appellate court held that none of the five reasons provided by the trial court constituted valid grounds for departure from the guidelines. Conduct for which a defendant has been acquitted, lack of remorse, prior criminal history already factored into the guidelines, and prior prison sentences cannot support departure; psychological trauma must be proven with competent evidence such as medical testimony, not mere prosecutor assertions.
[1] Conduct for which a person has been acquitted cannot be a basis for departure from sentencing guidelines.
[2] A defendant's prior criminal history, already factored into sentencing guidelines, cannot be used as a separate reason for departure.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Conduct for which a person has been acquitted cannot be a basis for departure from the guidelines.”
Establishes that the trial court improperly relied on sexual battery conduct for which the defendant was acquitted as a reason to depart from sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Carnegie was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and battery. He was acquitted of sexual battery. On remand following an earlier reversal due …
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 Psychological Trauma cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
By this appeal, appellant argues that the court erred in imposing a sentence beyond the recommended range of the sentencing guidelines. We agree.
Appellant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and battery. We reversed the burglary sentence because the court failed to furnish written reasons for departure from the recommended range of the guidelines. Carnegie v. State, 473 So. 2d 782 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). Upon remand, the court departed from the recommended range of twelve to thirty months and sentenced appellant to fifteen years. The written reasons given for departure and an analysis thereof follows:
(1) This crime involved extreme violence on the part of the defendant who has a criminal history of violence including one prior felony and one prior misdemeanor. The court concluded that he is a danger to society. From the sentencing colloquy it is evident that the court in referring to extreme violence was alluding to the circumstances which the court believed were sufficient to convict appellant of sexual battery even though the jury acquitted him of that charge. Conduct for which a person has been acquitted cannot be a basis for departure from the guidelines. Fletcher v. State, 457 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Appellant’s prior record has already been factored into the guidelines. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985).
(2) The manner of entry into the residence and the actions of the defendant when inside the residence show the crime was well planned and thought out. When not an inherent component of the crime, premeditation or calculation may justify a departure if the facts supporting premeditation or calculation are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lerma v. State, 497 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1986). However, the record reflects that appellant only contemplated the commission of the crime a few minutes before it occurred. There is no indication that this was a carefully conceived plan.
(3) Defendant showed no remorse whatsoever and the jury, by its verdict, implicitly found that he committed perjury on the witness stand. Lack of remorse is an improper reason for departure. Baker v. State, 493 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Brunson v. State, 492 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Moreover, a departure from the guidelines cannot be predicated upon the court’s conclusion that the defendant “perjured” himself during his testimony. Sloan v. State, 472 So. 2d 488 (Fla.2d DCA 1985).
(4) The victim sustained extreme psychological trauma as a result of the crime perpetrated by the defendant. We have held that the infliction of extreme psychological trauma on the victim may be a valid reason to depart from the recom mended guidelines sentence. Ochoa v. State, 476 So. 2d 1348 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). However, in this case there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the degree of psychological trauma required. There was no medical evidence, and the victim did not appear at sentencing. The only reference to the subject came from the prosecutor who stated that the victim worried about the sentence and had nightmares.
(5) Defendant has served a prison term which apparently did not constitute a deterrent to continued criminal activity and, therefore, this court concluded he must be warehoused for the maximum period allowed by law. Once again, since the crime for which appellant served time in prison was factored into the guidelines, that offense may not be used as a reason for departure. Hendrix v. State.
Because none of the reasons for departure were valid, we reverse appellant’s burglary sentence and remand for resentencing within the recommended range of the guidelines.
SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaynor v. State, 505 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…und for departure, has not survived Lerma. Thus, premeditation or calculation, if not an inherent component of the crime, can sustain departure if there are facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt disclosing those mental processes. Carnegie v. State, 498 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Here, however, we are unable to determine the element of either premeditation or calculation from the undifferentiated reference in the departure document to “crimes.” In any event, even if we were to assume upon the present reco…
-
Coleman v. State, 521 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…1987). That Coleman “lied” to the court by denying struggling with the police is likewise an invalid basis for departure. See Sloan v. State, 472 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Cannada v. State, 472 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Carnegie v. State, 498 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Finding no valid reasons given for a departure sentence, we reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines. LEHAN, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.…
-
Koleta v. State, 592 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…in the face.” When not an inherent component of the crime, calculation or premeditation may justify a departure sentence if the facts supporting them are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lerma v. State, 497 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1986); Carnegie v. State, 498 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In this case a calculated design is not an inherent component of murder of the second degree. Section 782.-04(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). Under the facts of this case, however, calculation or premeditation is not a valid reason for th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Ervin Sharp v. State, 497 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Sloan v. State, 472 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Ochoa v. State, 476 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Baker v. State, 493 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Dorion Fletcher v. State, 457 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Carnegie v. State, 473 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Allangson Brunson v. State, 492 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)