JEROME BARFIELD, 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.
Jerome Barfield appeals his departure from sentencing guidelines after being convicted of attempted murder and aggravated battery. The trial court imposed a life sentence based on a habitual offender finding, but the appellate court reverses the sentence under Whitehead v. State, holding that the habitual offender designation cannot serve as a valid reason for departure from guidelines.
The court reverses Barfield's sentence because the trial court's primary reason for departure—the habitual offender finding—is invalid under Whitehead v. State. The convictions are affirmed, but the sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing consistent with proper guidelines principles.
[1] A departure sentence based on a habitual offender finding is improper when that finding is the primary reason for departure and is invalid under controlling precedent.
[2] Victim injury and prior record are invalid reasons for departure when they have already been factored into the scoresheet.
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“a life sentence is mandatory under Florida Statute 775.084 since the defendant was convicted of a first degree felony and declared to be an [sic] habitual felony offender.”
The trial court's stated reason for departure from guidelines, which the appellate court found to be invalid under Whitehead
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarfield was convicted by jury of attempted murder in the second degree and four counts of aggravated battery. The sentencing guidelines scoresheet in…
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 Sentencing Guidelines Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s departure from the presumptive guidelines range. At trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of attempted murder in the second degree and guilty of four counts of aggravated battery. A scoresheet was prepared indicating a guidelines range of seventeen to twenty-two years’ incarceration. At the sentencing hearing, which was held prior to the supreme court’s decision of Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986), the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty as per the jury’s verdict, found appellant to be a habitual offender and sentenced him to life in prison. The trial court stated, inter alia, in its written reasons for departure that “[a] life sentence is mandatory under Florida Statute 775.084 since the defendant was convicted of a first degree felony and declared to be an [sic] habitual felony offender.”
We reverse appellant’s sentence based on the authority of Whitehead. It is apparent from the statement “a life sentence is mandatory” that the habitual offender finding was the trial court’s primary reason for departing. Since that reason is clearly improper under Whitehead, we cannot be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have departed absent the invalid reasons. Casteel v. State, 498 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1986); Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985).
When appellant is resentenced, the following guidelines principles should be kept in mind. Victim injury and prior record are invalid reasons for departure when already factored into the scoresheet. Vanover v. State, 498 So. 2d 899, 901 (Fla. 1986); Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218, 1220 (Fla.1985). An escalating pattern of more serious and violent offenses and prior unscored juvenile convictions are both valid reasons for departure. Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1987); Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1986); Weems v. State, 469 So. 2d 128 (Fla.1985). Failure to respond to past rehabilitation efforts and a lack of regard for the law and judicial system have been found to be valid reasons by this court. Fuller v. State, 488 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). No citation is needed for the well-settled guidelines principle that in order for any valid reason to be found “clear and convincing” on appeal, that reason must be supported by the record.
We affirm appellant’s convictions and reverse and vacate his sentences and remand for resentencing.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with instructions.
HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- 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)
- Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1987)
- Casteel v. State, 498 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1986)
- Weems v. State, 469 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1985)
- Creed Martin Vanover v. State, 498 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1986)
- Fuller v. State, 488 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)