GIOVANNI FIELDS, 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.
Giovanni Fields appealed his guilty plea convictions for armed robbery and aggravated battery, challenging the trial court's departure from Florida sentencing guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentence, finding the trial court improperly considered victim trauma as a basis for upward departure when victim injury was already factored into the guidelines calculation.
The trial court erred in departing from the guidelines. Emotional and psychological trauma to the victim cannot be a valid reason for departure when victim injury has already been accounted for in calculating the guidelines range. The trial court's second reason for departure was also rejected.
[1] A trial court may not depart from recommended guidelines sentences based on emotional or psychological trauma to the victim when such trauma is a direct consequence of ph…
[2] Emotional and psychological trauma suffered by a victim is not a valid reason for departure from sentencing guidelines when the offense is aggravated battery.
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“It is not permissible to consider physical injury to the victim where victim injury has already been taken into account in determining the guidelines range.”
Establishes the core legal principle prohibiting double-counting of victim injury in sentencing departures.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFields pled guilty to armed robbery and aggravated battery. During the robbery, Fields struck the victim five times with a metal pipe. The victim suff…
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 Victim Injury Points cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pled guilty to one count of armed robbery and one count of aggravated battery. During the course of the robbery, appellant struck the victim five times with a metal pipe. The victim testified:
THE COURT: Let me ask you, do the injuries that you incurred, have they caused you any emotional or psychological trauma of a lasting and permanent nature?
MR. LATORTUE: The only permanent state that I would be, that I would know that I have a scar in the back of my head and I am of course now a little paranoid ever since the incident.
THE COURT: Tell me about your paranoia.
MR. LATORTUE: Well, now I would, since the incident, I would even lock my own family out of the house, unconsciously lock the door, everything, bolts, including even my room now and I am very careful if I am walking at night if I am alone and not watching all sides. Due to this, I am just a little more paranoid now....
Appellant claims the trial court erred when it departed from the recommended guidelines sentence. We agree.
The trial court based its departure on “emotional and psychological trauma” suffered by the victim and because it found the guidelines sentence inappropriate for the heinous nature of the crime since appellant hit the victim five times. The guidelines scoresheet included twenty-one points for severe victim injury.
In Previlon v. State, 500 So. 2d 716, 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), we held:
The first reason given for departure was the physiological and emotional trau ma to the victim. It is not permissible to consider physical injury to the victim where victim injury has already been taken into account in determining the guidelines range. See State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986). Since emotional and psychological trauma suffered by the victim of an aggravated assault is not a valid reason for departure, State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1986), we hold that trauma is not a valid reason where the offense is aggravated battery.
Also see State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1987).
We also reject the trial court’s second reason for departure. See Gibson v. State, 509 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) and Tanner v. State, 512 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction and reverse the sentence imposed. We remand this case to the trial court with instructions to sentence appellant within the guidelines. See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1986)
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Cote, 487 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1986)
- Roges Previlon v. State, 500 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Gibson v. State, 509 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Tanner v. State, 512 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)