STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CLAUDE ANDREW HUGGINS, 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 state appealed a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines imposed on Claude Huggins for sexual battery, robbery, and battery convictions. The court reversed, holding that disparity in codefendant sentencing, attributable to the codefendant's plea bargain, does not constitute clear and convincing reasons to depart downward from the presumptive guideline sentence.
The court held that sentencing disparity between a defendant and codefendant is not a clear and convincing reason to depart downward from the presumptive guideline sentence, particularly where the disparity results from the codefendant's decision to accept a plea bargain. The presumptive sentence must be imposed.
[1] A trial court may depart downward from a presumptive sentence only for clear and convincing reasons.
[2] Disparity in the sentencing of a codefendant is not a clear and convincing reason for a downward departure from a presumptive sentence.
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 intelligence“Although a trial judge may mitigate or depart downward from a presumptive sentence, he may only do so for clear and convincing reasons.”
Establishes the legal standard for departing from guideline sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHuggins and a codefendant were charged with sexual battery, armed robbery, and aggravated battery. The codefendant accepted a plea offer to reduced ch…
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 Clear And Convincing Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The state has appealed from a guidelines sentence imposed upon appellee, Claude Andrew Huggins. We find that the trial court erred in departing downward from the presumptive sentence indicated by the guidelines scoresheet, and we, accordingly, reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
Huggins and a codefendant were originally charged with sexual battery, strong armed robbery, and aggravated battery. The state offered both of them an opportunity to plead to reduced charges. The co-defendant accepted the state’s offer and after pleading to reduced charges was sentenced to serve four and one-half years in prison. Huggins refused the offer, proceeded to trial, and was found guilty of sexual battery with great force, strong armed robbery, and battery. The guidelines scoresheet prepared prior to sentencing indicated a presumptive sentence of between seven and nine years imprisonment. The court departed downward from the presumptive sentence and sentenced Huggins to serve four years imprisonment on the sexual battery charge, four years imprisonment on the strong armed robbery charge, and one year on the battery charge. All of the sentences were to be served concurrently. The court in setting forth its written reasons for departure stated that the codefendant was as involved in the crimes as Huggins, and the codefend-ant received a four and one-half year sentence because the state had allowed him to plead to lesser charges. The court, accordingly, felt that the disparity between Huggins’ presumptive sentence and codefend-ant’s sentence was not justified.
This appeal timely followed.
Although a trial judge may mitigate or depart downward from a presumptive sentence, he may only do so for clear and convincing reasons. Tanner v. State, 468 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We do not find clear and convincing reasons in this case.
We have held that a court cannot depart upward because a codefendant’s involvement in the crime was equal and there is no other valid reason for differentiating between the two defendants. Allen v. State, 476 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also, Von Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Just as disparity in the sentencing of a codefendant is not a clear and convincing reason to depart upward, it is not a clear and convincing reason to depart downward.
Huggins asserts that the imposition of the presumptive sentence in this case would amount to punishing him for exercising his constitutional right to receive a jury-trial. In United States v. Resnick, 483 F. 2d 354 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1008, 94 S.Ct. 370, 38 L.Ed.2d 246 (1973), the court said it stretched their credulity to think that one who declines to plead guilty with a recommended sentence acceptable to the court should nevertheless be given the benefits of a bargain available to, but rejected by him. We agree.
We, accordingly, reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines presumptive sentence.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hope v. State, 508 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…t pertains to an act of bribery depending upon the status or office held by the official being bribed. Neither is it a proper reason for departure to equate the sentence of the one bribing with the sentence of the one being bribed. State v. Huggins, 502 So. 2d 482 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); McCarthy v. State, 492 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Allen v. State, 476 So. 2d 309 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Von Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Because we conclude that the trial judge’s reasons for departure as…
-
Green v. State, 575 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Woods v. State, 490 So. 2d 24, 26 n. 1 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954, 107 S.Ct. 446, 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986); State v. Huggins, 502 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); LeRetilley v. Harris, 354 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1216 (Fla.1978).…
Authorities Cited
- von Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- United States v. Errol B. Resnick, 483 F.2d 354 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Abercrombie v. United States, 414 U.S. 1008 (U.S. 1973)
- Resnick v. United States, 414 U.S. 1008 (U.S. 1973)
- Quintin Stacey Allen v. State, 476 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Tanner v. State, 468 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)