THOMAS D. BURNS, 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.
Thomas Burns appeals his sentence for worthless check and grand theft offenses, challenging the trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines and a probation condition prohibiting bar visits. The court vacates and remands for resentencing because two of the three reasons given for departure were invalid, but affirms the bar-visit condition because Burns failed to timely object.
The departure from guidelines was improper because two of the three stated reasons (lack of remorse and failure to make restitution) were invalid under Florida law, requiring vacation and remand for resentencing. The absence of a scoresheet was harmless error because the court demonstrated awareness of the guidelines range. The bar-visit condition was properly affirmed because Burns failed to object at sentencing.
[1] Lack of remorse is not a valid reason for departure from sentencing guidelines.
[2] Failure to make restitution is not a valid ground for departure from sentencing guidelines when restitution has not yet been ordered.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Lack of remorse is not a valid reason for departure.”
Establishes that one of the trial court's stated reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines was legally invalid.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurns pleaded guilty to obtaining property by worthless checks and entered a no-contest plea to grand theft. The trial court imposed a three-year susp…
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 Lack Of Remorse cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thomas D. Burns appeals his sentence and the condition of probation prohibiting him from visiting bars.
Burns entered a guilty plea to a number of charges of obtaining property in return for worthless checks and pled no contest to a charge of grand theft. On the grand theft charge, the court imposed a sentence of three years in prison to be suspended after eighteen months. On the worthless check charges, the trial court placed Burns on probation for five years on each charge to run concurrent with each other and with the grand theft charge.
Burns raises three points on appeal. He first argues that the trial court erred in exceeding the guidelines recommended range of any nonstate prison sentence without providing clear and convincing reasons. The court gave the following reasons for departure:
1. Lack of remorse — Lack of remorse is not a valid reason for departure. Johnson v. State, 503 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Washington v. State, 501 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Moreover, the facts here do not support the court’s finding of lack of remorse. When asked why he had failed to make restitution to the victim, Burns responded that he felt it would not have made any difference. It appears that Bums was referring to the fact that charges had already been filed against him and that restitution would not have changed this. The court seems to have interpreted this response as lack of remorse. In the absence of any other clear evidence of lack of remorse, we do not believe this statement, given the context in which it was made, constitutes evidence of lack of remorse.
2. Failure to make restitution —Failure to make restitution is not a valid ground upon which to base a departure where the defendant has not yet been ordered to make restitution. Carney v. State, 458 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
3. Breach of trust — Breach of trust placed in Burns as an attorney is a valid reason for departure. See Hankey v. State, 485 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1986); Jakubowski v. State, 494 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that there are one valid and two invalid reasons for departure; therefore, pursuant to Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. See also Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Next, Burns alleges that the trial court erred in sentencing without a sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The record does not contain a guidelines scoresheet; however, the colloquy reveals that the trial court was aware of the presumptive guidelines range. Therefore, absence of a score-sheet here is harmless error. See Percival v. State, 506 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1985). On remand, however, the trial court is instructed to include a scoresheet in the record.
Finally, Bums contends the court committed error in prohibiting him from visiting bars as a condition of probation. The record reveals that Bums failed to object to this condition at sentencing. He is therefore precluded from raising this challenge now. McPike v. State, 473 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we affirm the condition of probation.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacobsen v. State, 536 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…of probation as stated in Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), Jacobsen’s failure to raise a contemporaneous objection to the imposition of that condition at the hearing prohibits him from raising the challenge now. Burns v. State, 513 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); McPike v. State, 473 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Jacobsen finally maintains, and we agree, that it is incumbent upon the state to establish that Jacobsen wilfully violated the terms of his probation. See Scott v. State, 485 S…
-
Stermer v. State, 541 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…f sexually-motivated misbehavior. Finally, prior to the sentencing of Stermer we had made abundantly plain in a number of opinions that a defendant’s lack of remorse may not be relied upon to enlarge a guidelines sentence. See, e.g., Burns v. State, 513 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The ultimate, but delayed, written reason for sentencing Stermer beyond the presumptive range was no less invalid than those uttered at the hearing. The element of timing was grounded upon the fact that the misdemeanor nolo plea…
-
Clifton v. State, 576 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…guidelines); Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (where the record demonstrated the trial court was informed as to the presumptive guidelines sentence, the absence of a score-sheet was irrelevant or harmless). See also Burns v. State, 513 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The record of the appellant’s sentencing hearing reveals that the trial court was not at all certain as to the correct presumptive sentence. To the contrary, the trial judge stated that he believed that the appellant’s presumpti…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Hankey v. State, 485 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1986)
- Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1987)
- Carney v. State, 458 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Jakubowski v. State, 494 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Washington v. State, 501 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- McPIKE v. State, 473 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Percival v. State, 506 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)