CHRIS ALAN VANOVER, 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.
Appellant Vanover appeals his sentencing guideline departure imposed after conviction for battery and auto theft. The trial court departed upward based on flight to avoid apprehension and destruction of evidence, but the appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding both departure reasons legally insufficient.
The sentence is vacated and remanded. Flight to avoid apprehension is not a valid reason for departure. Additionally, a departure cannot be based on destruction of evidence when the automobile theft was committed to leave the area rather than to destroy evidence, and the stolen sheets were not the subject of the conviction or charge.
[1] Flight to avoid apprehension or prosecution is not a valid reason for a sentencing guideline departure.
[2] A sentencing departure cannot be based on factors relating to an offense for which convictions have not been obtained.
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“flight to avoid apprehension or prosecution is not a valid reason for departure”
Establishes the primary legal basis for invalidating the first departure reason.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant stabbed a victim with a knife and stole the victim's automobile. He also took bloody bed sheets from the scene and disposed of them in trash…
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 Destruction Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a sentencing guideline departure sentence.
The trial judge departed from the recommended guideline sentence because:
1. Departure above the guidelines on the grand theft sentence is appropriate because the motive for the theft was to escape apprehension for another crime, and the reckless manner in which the defendant carried out the theft and attempted escape posed a great risk to other drivers because the defendants admittedly drove while under the influence of alcohol combined with cocaine taken expressly for the purpose of enabling the defendant to carry out the theft.
2. Departure about the guidelines is appropriate in a sentence for grand theft where a motive for the theft was to remove and destroy evidence from the scene of a crime.
Appellant was charged with second degree murder, possession of a weapon in the commission of a felony and grand theft of an automobile. He was convicted of battery and auto theft. The judge departed for the reasons mentioned above and appellant says the reasons are insufficient to support the departure. We agree. The evidence is that appellant stabbed the victim with a knife then took his car and some bloody bed sheets and left for Texas. Along the way appellant disposed of the bed sheets by putting them in trash containers at a roadside park. When he was stopped for a traffic violation in Texas, he confessed his crimes and told of the location of the bloody bed sheets. They were recovered. At the scene of the crime he had left some of his clothing and the desk clerk at the motel (the scene) had his name and address. Before leaving town the appellant became intoxicated and impaired by the ingestion of alcohol and cocaine.
The first reason for departure is invalid for two reasons. First, flight to avoid apprehension or prosecution is not a valid reason for departure. McCall v. State, 503 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Pendelton v. State, 493 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Second, even though operating a car while under the influence of alcohol and cocaine may pose a great risk to other drivers a departure cannot be based on factors relating to the offense for which convictions have not been obtained. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll). While worded as a valid reason, creating great risk to others, the first reason actually departs on the basis that the appellant was driving under the influence. This violates Rule 3.701(d)(ll). .
The second reason for departure might be considered valid because destruction of evidence sought in an investigation is a valid reason for departure. Fernandez v. State, 482 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). However, the stealing of the automobile was not done to destroy evidence; it was done to leave the area. The incidental fact that appellant also took the bed sheets and attempted to dispose of them does not give the court a proper reason to depart; appellant was not convicted of, or even charged with, the theft of the bed sheets.
The sentence is vacated and this cause remanded for resentencing.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucian Herman Hawkins v. State, 522 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ture in one [*491] respect and as an improper reason for departure in another respect, in an abundance of caution we shall construe it as an improper reason in violation of the prohibition contained in Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 d.11. See Vanover v. State, 514 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Because the departure sentence imposed was based on both valid and invalid reasons, and because the state has not proven that absent the improper reasons the departure would have been the same, we affirm the convictions but reve…
-
Aleman v. State, 536 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…. Although the record clearly indicates that he fled the scene and discarded his shirt, it does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Aleman’s motive was to conceal evidence. See Gray v. State, 522 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Vanover v. State, 514 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); see generally Davis, 517 So. 2d at 672 (“In order for a reason to be clear and convincing, there must be an appropriate reason for departure and the facts of the case must establish the reason in that particular case beyond a re…
-
Willmeth v. State, 536 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…ver, that departure sentences must be supported by written reasons. State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985). Since the oral reason for departure (i.e., the use of cocaine to induce thefts of property) was an improper one under Vanover v. State, 514 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines. See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987). [*398] The convictions are affirmed; the sentences are reversed. REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. DAUKSCH a…
Authorities Cited
- Pendleton v. State, 493 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Eddy Piquion v. State, 482 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- McCALL v. State, 503 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)