ALBERT HESTER, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the First District Court of Appeal reconsidered whether Hester's sentences could be upheld despite the invalidity of some departure reasons under the standard established in Griffis v. State. The court affirmed the original sentences, finding that the valid departure reason (escalating pattern of criminality) was substantial enough to support the sentences independently of the invalid reasons.
The court affirmed the original sentences, holding that the one valid departure reason (escalating pattern of criminality) was substantial enough to support the sentences independently. The court was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence relying solely on the valid reason.
[1] A trial court's statement that it would depart from sentencing guidelines for any one of the reasons given is insufficient, standing alone, to establish that the sentence…
[2] An appellate court may affirm a sentence based on a single valid departure reason, even if other departure reasons are invalid, if it is persuaded beyond a reasonable dou…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 Griffis court held that a trial court's statement that it would depart from the sentencing guidelines for any one of the reasons given is insufficient, standing alone, to establish that the sentence given would have been the same without the invalid reasons.”
Establishes the legal standard from Griffis that the court must apply when evaluating whether a sentence can be upheld despite invalid departure reasons.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHester received sentences with multiple stated departure reasons from the sentencing guidelines. Some of these reasons were found to be invalid, and t…
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 Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These cases are again before us on remand by the Florida Supreme Court with instructions for the court to reconsider, in light of Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.1987), its affirmance of appellant’s sen- fences, notwithstanding the invalidity of some of the departure reasons. The facts involved are fully stated in our first opinions. Hester v. State, 503 So. 2d 1342 and 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), app’vd in part and quashed in part, 520 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1988).
The Griffis court held that a trial court’s statement that it would depart from the sentencing guidelines for any one of the reasons given is insufficient, standing alone, to establish that the sentence given would have been the same without the invalid reasons. In our original decisions, after a discussion in detail of all reasons given for departure, we then noted certain statements by the trial court, in addition to the enumerated reasons for departure, including the “boiler-plate” language condemned in Griffis. We found one departure reason, the “escalating pattern of criminality,” to be valid. We then held that “we [were] persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would impose the same sentence if any of the above six reasons were found to be valid.”
Upon further consideration, in light of Griffis, we adhere to our original decisions. The permissible reason we relied upon in upholding the departure is quite substantial; and as our original opinions indicate, we gave minimal attention to the “boilerplate” recital in reaching our decision. In sum, our decision regarding the sufficiency of the departure reason remains unchanged.
Accordingly, the judgments and sentences in cases numbered BN-252 and BN-253 are AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J. and JOANOS, J., concur. BARFIELD, J., concurs with written opinion.
BARFIELD, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the decision of the majority in this case including the analysis and reasons set forth in the opinion; however, it is my further opinion that this case should be affirmed on the basis of chapter 87-110, Laws of Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1987)
- Hester v. State, 503 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Hester v. State, 520 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1988)