MARIO EMIL ROA, 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 affirmed the conviction for burglary, aggravated battery, and grand theft based on sufficient circumstantial evidence, but reversed the sentencing departure and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.
A trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines must be supported by legally sufficient and factually supported reasons.
[1] A trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines requires reasons that are both legally sufficient and factually supported by the record.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMario Emil Roa was convicted of burglary, aggravated battery, and two counts of grand theft. The victim suffered great bodily harm.…
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 Great Bodily Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, Mario Emil Roa, appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary, aggravated battery and two counts of grand theft. We affirm appellant’s conviction as we find there was sufficient circumstantial evidence upon which the jury could base a conviction for grand theft and burglary. We also find that the state produced sufficient evidence to indicate that the victim suffered the “great bodily harm” necessary to sustain a conviction for aggravated battery pursuant to section 784.045(1), Fla. Stat. (1985).
We find merit, however, in appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines on the following grounds: (1) The serious nature of appellant’s acts; (2) a pattern of excessive violence; (3) that exceeding the guidelines was necessary for the .protection of the public; (4) the psychological trauma and pain suffered by the victim; (5) that the guideline sentence would not allow adequate time for rehabilitation; and (6) that appellant intended and attempted to kill the victim.
Upon review of the record, we conclude that none of the reasons cited by the trial court are legally sufficient or factually supported by the record to justify exceeding the presumptive guideline sentence. See State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986).
We, therefore, affirm appellant’s conviction and remand to the trial court for sentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.
FRANK, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ROA v. State, 574 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…, aggravated battery, and two counts of grand theft in the second degree exceeded the sentencing guidelines. Upon appeal to this court, we reversed the sentences and directed the trial court to resentence Roa within the guidelines. See Roa v. State, 512 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). On resentencing, Roa received a sentence within the guidelines of four and one-half years in state prison to be followed by fifteen years’ probation. In April 1989, while on probation, Roa’s probation officer filed an affidavit…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1986)