PHILIP J. FULLER, 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 sentence would be affirmed because the trial court would have departed from the guidelines even without considering the impermissible reason of habitual offender status.
Philip J. Fuller appealed his sentence, which exceeded the recommended guidelines range. This was a second appeal after the first remanded the case fo…
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
THREADGILL, Judge.
Philip J. Fuller appeals his sentence in excess of the guidelines recommended range.
In Fuller v. State, 488 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), this court affirmed the appellant’s conviction for armed robbery, but remanded the case for resentencing because most of the reasons cited for guidelines departure were invalid. This court stated:
We agree that the majority of the reasons listed for departure are not clear and convincing reasons. However, those reasons which refer to appellant’s course of conduct showing that he is a danger to society, continues a pattern of violent behavior, and has a lack of regard for the law and judicial system, together with his resistance to rehabilitation, are valid reasons upon which to justify a departure.
488 So. 2d 594.
Upon remand for resentencing pursuant to Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), the circuit court again deviated from the guidelines recommended range and in support of departure restated those reason(s) found by this court in the first appeal to be valid. The circuit judge further stated:
Let it be known beyond a reasonable doubt, that this Court would have departed from the guidelines for any one of the above stated reasons. Additionally, this Court has declared this defendant to be a habitual felony offender pursuant to Florida Statute 774.084.
Since this court has previously decided that the reasons given for departure were sufficient, we affirm the departure sentence based on those reasons.
Although in Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986) our supreme court held that habitual offender status is an impermissible reason for departure, we nevertheless affirm the sentence because we are convinced that the judge would have exceeded the recommended range even had this invalid reason been excluded from consideration. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985); State v. Sachs, 507 So. 2d 708 (Fla.1987) [12 F.L.W. 1260].
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Fuller v. State, 488 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- State v. Sachs, 507 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)