JOSEPH GRIFFIS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court answered a certified question regarding sentencing guidelines departures, holding that a trial court's statement that it would depart for any one of several reasons, some valid and some invalid, does not satisfy the Albritton standard for affirming sentences with invalid departure reasons. The court rejected boilerplate sentencing language and required meaningful appellate review of whether sentences would be the same absent impermissible factors.
No. A trial court's anticipatory statement that it would depart for any of the stated reasons, standing alone, is insufficient to satisfy the burden under Albritton. The appellate court must be satisfied by the entire record that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same without impermissible reasons.
[1] A trial court's statement that it would depart from sentencing guidelines for any of the reasons given, regardless of whether some reasons are later found invalid, does n…
[2] Where an appellate court finds some reasons for a departure sentence to be invalid, the sentence must be reversed unless the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that…
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“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?”
The certified question of great public importance before the court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGriffis was sentenced with a departure from the sentencing guidelines. The trial court included language stating it would depart for any one of the re…
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 Burden Of Proof (Beyond A Reasonable Doubt) cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review Griffis v. State, 497 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in which the district court certified the following 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 REASONS GIVEN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BOTH VALID AND INVALID REASONS ARE FOUND ON REVIEW, SATISFY THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN ALBRITTON V. STATE?
Id. at 297. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and answer the question in the negative. The obvious difficulty posed by an affirmative answer is the danger recognized by Judge Barfield in his concurring opinion: some trial judges may be tempted to mechanically include a “boiler plate” statement without conscientiously weighing whether his or her decision would be affected by the elimination of one or more of several reasons for departure. 497 So. 2d at 298.
Because of this concern, this Court rejected the recommendation of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission in December 1985 that such a statement be permitted. The Court said then:
There is too great a temptation to include this phraseology in all departure sentences and we do not believe it appropriate to approve boiler plate language. The trial judge must conscientiously weigh relevant factors in imposing sentences; in most instances an improper inclusion of an erroneous factor affects an objective determination of an appropriate sentence.
The Florida Bar re: Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines, 3.701, 3.988), 482 So. 2d 311, 312 n. 1 (Fla.1985).
Moreover, in Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), we held that where the appellate court finds some reasons for departure to be invalid, it must reverse unless the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same without the invalid reasons. We cannot in good conscience say that such a standard can be met through the anticipatory language of the trial judge rather than the reweighing of only the appropriate departure factors. The trial judge should have the opportunity to review and weigh the appropriate factors under the guidance of the appellate court’s review of the reasons given. We see no reason to recede from our position of December 1985.
We reiterate the principle of Al-britton. Such a sentence can be affirmed only where the appellate court is satisfied by the entire record that the state has met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same without the impermissible reasons. A statement by the trial court that it would depart for any of the reasons given, standing alone, is not enough to satisfy that burden.
Thus, the decision of the district court is quashed and the matter remanded for reconsideration in light of the foregoing.*
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and EHRLICH, SHAW and GRIMES, JJ„ concur. OVERTON and KOGAN, JJ., dissent.
*
We do not decide the effect of section 921.-001(5), Florida Statutes, as amended in 1987, see CS for SBs 35, 437, 894 and 923, § 3, upon cases involving crimes committed subsequent to July 1, 1987.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (48 total)
-
Mathis v. State, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1987)…for resentenc-ing within the guidelines. It is so ordered. MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . Although inapplicable in this case, we answered the certified question in the negative in Grif-fis i v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1987). . If there had been victim injury, it would not have been scored because the guidelines in effect at the time of petitioner’s sentencing allowed scoring for victim injury only if it was an element of the crime for which the defendant w…
-
Munroe v. State, 514 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…from the guidelines that it would enhance Munroe’s sentence regardless of the number of reasons set forth in the order.1 That statement will no longer save a departure sentence predicated upon reasons found to be valid and invalid. Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.1987). In Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985), we were told that the affirmance of an extended sentence based upon appropriate and inappropriate grounds would be sustainable only when the state establishes beyond a reasonable doubt…
-
Williams v. State, 531 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…have found the third reason for departure invalid, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have arrived at the same sentencing decision on the basis of the two other stated reasons for departure.2 See Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.1987); Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). Moreover, while we do not approve the trial court’s failure to articulate reasons for departure at sentencing, we find the omission does not require reversal for resentencing in the narrow c…
Previewing 3 of 48 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- The Fla. Bar re: Rules of Crim. Procedure (sentencing Guidelines, 482 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1985)
- Griffis v. State, 497 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)