MICHAEL TYRONE BRAGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
This case involves an appeal by a defendant challenging the reasons for his upward departure from sentencing guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the sentences, finding that the trial court's reasons for departure were valid.
Yes, the appellate court found that all five reasons provided by the trial court for departing upward from the sentencing guidelines were valid.
[1] An escalating pattern of criminal behavior culminating in the instant offense is a valid reason for departing upward from presumptive sentencing guidelines.
[2] Committing offenses shortly after release from custody for a prior offense is a valid reason for departing upward from presumptive sentencing guidelines.
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“the defendant has been involved in an escalating pattern of criminal behavior culminating in the instant offense”
One of the trial court's reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of burglary with assault and robbery. After his initial sentences were affirmed, the trial court vacated them and resenten…
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 Retribution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Michael Tyrone Braggs from sentences of 100 years and thirty-four years imposed upon prior convictions for (1) burglary with an assault, and (2) robbery, based on adverse jury verdicts. We have previously affirmed these convictions and sentences, Braggs v. State, 478 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); subsequently, the trial court vacated these sentences pursuant to Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850 and resentenced the defendant to the sentences now under review. These sentences depart upward from the presumptive sentencing guidelines sentence, and the defendant attacks the validity of three of the trial court’s five reasons for exceeding these guidelines. We disagree and affirm.
Without dispute, two of the trial court’s reasons for departing from the sen- tenting guidelines were valid reasons for such departure — namely, that “the defendant has been involved in an escalating pattern of criminal behavior culminating in the instant offense,” and that “the defendant committed these offenses shortly after being released from custody for a prior offense.” Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1986); Nixon v. State, 494 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Swain v. State, 455 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Two of the three remaining reasons for departure were also valid when considered together — namely, that “this defendant has been shown to be unamenable to rehabilitation,” and that “the defendant has failed to respond to alternative treatment programs.” Ballard v. State, 501 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 488 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1986); Burch v. State, 462 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA), aff'd, 476 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1985).
The final reason for departure: that “this sentence will more appropriately reflect the need to protect society and exact appropriate retribution,” is also a valid reason for said departure when considered together with the other four reasons. Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Mincey v. State, 460 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rommell Johnson v. State, 535 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ty to rehabilitation, see Ruiz v. State, 516 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So. 2d 880 (Fla.1988); Bogan v. State, 528 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Tapia v. State, 509 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); cf. Braggs v. State, [*655] 522 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) — were invalid, and we are not convinced that the trial court would have departed from the guidelines based only on the valid reasons.4, 5 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing on each of the three cou…
-
Braggs v. State, 545 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Braggs v. State, 522 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).…
-
McCRAY v. State, 531 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Ballard v. State, 506 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.1987); Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1986); Braggs v. State, 522 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Newland v. State, 508 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).…
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
- Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1986)
- Swain v. State, 455 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Burch v. State, 462 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Mincey v. State, 460 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- State v. Burch, 476 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1985)
- Ballard v. State, 501 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Job Elton Nixon v. State, 494 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Braggs v. State, 478 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)