SIDNEY OLLIE GIBSON, 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.
Gibson appeals his 25-year sentence for dealing in stolen property, which exceeded the sentencing guidelines. The court reversed because the trial judge's stated reasons for departing from the guidelines were legally invalid.
The court reversed because all four stated reasons for departure were invalid: reason (a) impermissibly relied on habitual offender status itself; reasons (b) and (c) double-counted prior criminal history already reflected in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet; and reason (d) failed to rationally relate to the extent of the departure.
[1] A habitual offender status is an invalid reason for departure from sentencing guidelines.
[2] Prior felony convictions that are factored into the sentencing guidelines scoresheet cannot be used as separate reasons for departure.
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“Reason a) relates to the finding of habitual offender status and is an invalid reason for departure.”
Establishes that habitual offender status cannot itself justify guideline departure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGibson was found guilty by jury of dealing in stolen property and declared a habitual offender. He was sentenced to 25 years, exceeding the guideline …
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 Prior Felony Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant Sidney Ollie Gibson contends the trial court erred in using appellant’s habitual offender status as a reason for departure from the sentencing guidelines. We agree and reverse.
After a jury trial, Gibson was found guilty of dealing in stolen property, declared to be a habitual offender and sentenced to 25 years incarceration in excess of the recommended guideline range of 9-12 years. The sentence exceeds the statutory 15-year maximum sentence for this second-degree felony.
The trial court’s September 3, 1986, five-páragraph order contains both its reasons for departure and its finding of habitual offender status. Paragraphs 1-3 track the language of section 775.084, Florida Statutes, and constitute the court’s finding that appellant is a habitual offender. Paragraph 4 states the court’s four reasons for departure:
a) In a relatively short period of time, from 1977 through 1982, the defendant amassed a total of eleven (11) felony convictions.
b) The prior eleven felony convictions involved different victims, different locations and most were committed on different dates.
c) The defendant has shown a pattern of complete disregard for the property rights of others.
d) The defendant has failed to be rehabilitated by prior terms of probation and short periods of imprisonment.
We find all four reasons for departure to be invalid. Reason a) relates to the finding of habitual offender status and is an invalid reason for departure. Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). Reasons b) and c) are invalid since they take into ac count defendant’s prior record, which was already factored into the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985). Reason d) is invalid because it fails to bear any relationship to the court’s departure. The trial court stated that the appellant had failed to be rehabilitated by prior probation and short terms of imprisonment, yet the recommended guideline range would have allowed the court to impose a term of 9-12 years. See Fain v. State, 488 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Abt v. State, 504 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
We reverse and remand for resentencing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 530 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…earlier opinion of this court, Abt v. State, 504 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), stated that the failure to rehabilitate the defendant was an invalid ground for departure. See also Fain v. State, 488 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Gibson v. State, 510 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Bradley v. State, 509 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). However, the authority followed in Abt v. State, (Samuel) Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1986), and Scurry v. State, 489 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1986), are here inapposite.…
Authorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- ABT v. State, 504 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Fain v. State, 488 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)