DAVID LEE HAYES, 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 appellate court affirmed Hayes's conviction for second-degree robbery but reversed and vacated his sentence of fifteen years. The trial court improperly scored victim injury on the sentencing scoresheet under the 1985 guidelines, as victim injury was not an element of robbery at the time of the offenses.
The trial court improperly scored victim injury because victim injury was not an element of the convicted offenses. The court reversed and vacated the sentence, holding that the trial court may not score victim injury on remand, but may depart from guidelines based on victim injury as a non-scoresheet factor since victim injury cannot be included in the scoresheet calculation.
[1] Victim injury shall be scored if it is an element of any offenses at conviction.
[2] Victim injury cannot be scored where it is not an element of the convicted offenses.
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“Victim injury is not an element of the convicted offenses. Victim injury cannot be scored where it is not an element of the convicted offenses.”
Establishes the core legal holding regarding improper scoring of victim injury on sentencing scoresheet.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHayes was convicted of second-degree robbery and committed his offenses in early 1986 (January 4, 7). The trial court scored victim injury for the pri…
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, Judge.
The appellant was found guilty of second degree robbery in violation of section 812.-13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). At sentencing, the trial court scored victim injury for the primary offense, the second degree robbery, as well as for two additional robberies scored on the scoresheet as additional offenses. Appellant’s recommended guidelines sentence was five and one-half to seven and one-half years. The trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen years imprisonment. The trial court gave the following reasons for departure:
The Defendant was involved in a crime spree over a short period of time. On January 4, 1986, the defendant was involved in a robbery and grand theft, Case No. 85-135-CF [sic]. Just three days later, on January 7, 1986, the defendant committed two more robberies, Case Nos. 86-136-CF and 86-82-CF. The victim sustained serious personal injuries as a result of the violent act of the Defendant and the effects remain as of the date of sentencing. Further, the victim has suffered from psychological trauma as a result of the criminal act of the Defendant, the symptoms of which persist and will have a profound effect upon the victim in the future.
The trial court improperly scored victim injury for the offenses. Appellant committed his offenses in early 1986. At the time of the offenses, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(7) provided: “victim injury shall be scored if it is an element of any offenses at conviction.”1 Victim injury is not an element of the convicted offenses. Victim injury cannot be scored where it is not an element of the convicted offenses. Hansbrough v. State, 509 So. 2d 1081 (Fla.1987) Hendry v. State, 460 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Toney v. State, 456 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
An amendment to the sentencing guidelines may not be applied retroactively if it “changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.” Miller v. Florida, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). Scoring victim injury on the primary offenses as well as the two additional offenses increased the length of the presumptive guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction and reverse and vacate his sentence. On remand, the trial court may not score victim injury. The trial court may not depart from the sentencing guidelines presumptive sentence on the basis of appellant’s “crime spree.” The additional offenses were factored into appellant’s presumptive guidelines sentence. Mathis v. State, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1987); State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1987). However, because victim injury is not an element of robbery and, thus, under the 1986 law, cannot be calculated into the appellant’s scoresheet, the trial court may depart from the sentencing guidelines presumptive sentence on the basis of victim injury. Hansbrough, 509 So. 2d at 1087.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
DANAHY, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur. . In Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure re Sentencing Guidelines (Rules 3.701 and 3.988), 509 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1987), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Commission’s recommendation for amendment of Rule 3.701(d)(7). The amendment took effect July 1, 1987. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(7) now provides: "victim injury shall be scored for each victim physically injured during a criminal episode or transaction."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clifford v. State, 518 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987), requires that the guidelines in effect at the time Clifford committed the offenses in question be applied in determining whether the trial court erred in sentencing. See also, Hayes v. State, [*984] 516 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). At. the time the crimes were committed, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(7) provided that points for victim injury shall be scored if it is an element of any offenses at conviction.1 Since attempted murder and kidnapp…
-
Bryant Wright v. State, 538 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…pon.1 Massard v. State, 501 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), review dismissed, 504 So. 2d 403 (Fla.1987). Thus, victim injury may support a departure from sentencing guidelines. Hansbrough v. [*499] State, 509 So. 2d 1081 (Fla.1987); Hayes v. State, 516 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Schraffa v. State, 508 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Furthermore, the trial court’s second reason for departure, the use of excessive and cruel force in perpetrating the offense, constitutes grounds for departure from the reco…
-
Chambliss v. State, 562 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…on, 554 So. 2d 506 (Fla.1989); Mathis v. State, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1987); State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1987). See also Towe v. State, 536 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Morgan v. State, 528 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Hayes v. State, 516 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, defendant’s sentence is vacated and this matter is remanded for sentencing within the recommended sentencing guidelines range. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987). While recognizing the frustrations encountere…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1987)
- State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1987)
- Hansbrough v. State, 509 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1987)
- FLA. RULES OF CRIM. PROCEDURE RE SENTENCING GUIDELINES (RULES 3.701 & 3.988), 509 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1987)
- Mathis v. State, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1987)
- Hendry v. State, 460 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Bondurant v. Nickolas P. Geeker, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1987)
- Toney v. State, 456 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)