DENNIS EDWARD MAULDEN, 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 but reversed the sentence, holding that the trial court impermissibly departed from sentencing guidelines using invalid reasons and that the habitual offender statute cannot extend the statutory maximum when guidelines are exceeded.
The trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines was improper because only one of its stated reasons (victim trauma) was valid, and the State failed to prove the sentence would have been the same without the impermissible reasons.
[1] A trial court's statement that it would depart from sentencing guidelines for impermissible reasons, standing alone, does not satisfy the burden of proving beyond a reaso…
[2] The habitual offender statute cannot be used to extend the statutory maximum where sentencing guidelines have been impermissibly exceeded.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDennis Edward Maulden was convicted and sentenced by the trial court, which departed from the recommended sentencing guidelines range for reasons that…
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 Burden Of Proof In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., and LUZZO, JOHN T., Associate Judge, concur. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. This cause is affirmed in all respects except sentencing. None of the trial court’s reasons for departure from the recommended sentencing guidelines range are valid except the first, the emotional and psychological trauma to the victim. Additionally, the recent Florida Supreme Court case of Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.1987), provides that a statement by the trial court that it would depart for any of the reasons given, standing alone, is not enough to satisfy the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same without the impermissible reasons. See Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). Furthermore, the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1985), cannot be used to extend the statutory maximum where the sentencing guidelines were im-permissibly exceeded. Hester v. State, 503 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA1987); Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863, 865 (Fla.1987). Therefore, in this case, we hold that the State has not met its burden as established in Albritton and Whitehead, and we reverse and remand for resentencing.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tarrence L. Smith v. State, 526 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…v. State, 525 So. 2d 862 (Fla.1988); Hall v. State, 517 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1988); Vanover v. State, 498 So. 2d 899 (Fla.1986); Smith v. State, 525 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Whitfield v. State, 515 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Maulden v. State, 514 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). In Whitfield, the court noted, citing Rousseau, that although emotional or psychological trauma is an inherent component of armed robbery and aggravated assault, a departure reason based on psychological and emotional trauma to…
-
Maulden v. State, 539 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…GARRETT, Judge. Having been convicted of burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and trespass, the appellant was sentenced to fifteen (15) years for the burglary and to five (5) years concurrent for the grand theft. In Maulden v. State, 514 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), the appellant successfully argued that the trial judge erred in departing from the recommended guideline sentence, and the matter was remanded for resentencing. This court found only “the first, the emotional and psychological t…
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)
- Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1987)
- Hester v. State, 503 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)