THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHEN SALONY, 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.
A trial court may depart downward from recommended guideline sentences when it finds the defendant suffers from an obvious and chronic drug abuse problem that caused the crimes for which he is being sentenced.
[1] A defendant's obvious and chronic substance abuse problem that motivated the commission of both current and prior crimes constitutes a valid basis for downward departure…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 suffers from an obvious and chronic drug abuse problem which caused him to commit the crimes for which he was being sentenced and past crimes which were calculated into his sentencing scoresheet is a sufficient reason to justify a downward departure from a recommended sentence”
Court's statement of the legal standard for downward departure based on drug abuse
Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery with a firearm. He had previously been placed on probation for prior robberies and was evaluated b…
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 Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s concurrent sentences of five and seven years which departed from the recommended guideline sentence of twelve to fifteen years. The trial court’s finding that the defendant suffers from an obvious and chronic drug abuse problem which caused him to commit the crimes for which he was being sentenced and past crimes which were calculated into his sentencing scoresheet is a sufficient reason to justify a downward [*405] departure from a recommended sentence. Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1987); State v. Wilson, 523 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Mesa, 520 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Daughtry, 505 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). This court’s holding in State v. Thomas, 516 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), that the stated ground of the “defendant’s history of drug problems” is not a valid reason for a downward departure does not, contrary to the State’s contention, control the present case. First, in reaching its holding, Thomas relied on Vance v. State, 475 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), and Young v. State, 455 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), approved on other grounds, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1985), both of which held that drug dependency is not a valid reason for departing upwards from a recommended guideline sentence. However, as Barbera later made clear, the holdings of Vance and Young are not support for the converse proposition announced in Thomas that substance abuse is not a valid reason for departing downward from a recommended guideline sentence. Second, unlike the present case, there is no indication in Thomas that (a) the “defendant’s history of drug problems” was in any way related to the crimes for which he was being sentenced or any prior crimes for which he received points on the guideline scoresheet or (b) the drug “problems” were problems of dependency and abuse.1
The sentencing order under review is, accordingly,
Affirmed.
. In the present case the trial court’s detailed, albeit single-theme, order recited in pertinent part:
"1. The Court finds after carefully considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s arrest and subsequent pleas of guilty to three (3) separate informa-tions charging him with robbery with a weapon that the Defendant has an obvious and chronic substance abuse problem.
"2. The Defendant had previously been placed on probation by this Court on November 12, 1986, pursuant to pleas of guilty to the offense of robbery. This Defendant previously plead [sic] guilty in case numbers 86-23956 and 86-23957 to the robbery of a Farm Store convenience store. After careful review of the facts and circumstances surrounding those arrests and after carefully reviewing the facts and circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s arrest in the 1987 cases, where the Defendant is charged with robbing Farm Stores convenience stores, implying he had a firearm, it is apparent, that the Defendant is carrying out those acts to support a chronic substance abuse problem.
“3. [T]his Defendant was evaluated pursuant to his request under F.R.C.P. 3.216(a) by Doctors Mary Haber, Michael Rappaport and David Rothenberg. All three of these doctors, have indicated that he has an obvious and chronic substance abuse problem and but for the desire to satisfy his need, would not have carried out these acts.
"4. The Court further finds that the sentencing guidelines which call for a sentencing range of twelve (12) to seventeen (17) years is a bit extreme in light of the Defendant’s severe drug abuse history.’’
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herrin v. State, 568 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1990)…is a valid reason for downward departures from the sentencing guidelines. State v. Winter, 549 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); State v. Joseph, 543 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); State v. Bledsoe, 538 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Salony, 528 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1355 (Fla.1988); State v. Whitten, 524 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); State v. Francis, 524 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); State v. Wilson, 523 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). At the outset, we are…
-
State v. Bledsoe, 538 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…she has a drug problem.” The state now appeals. We disagree with the state’s contention that drug dependency is not a valid reason for downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1987); State v. Salony, 528 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1355 (Fla.1988); State v. Whitten, 524 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); State v. Wilson, 523 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). However, as the state contends, and the defendant concedes, the trial court erred…
-
State v. Joseph, 543 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). However, the record must support the conclusion that the appellee has a drug addiction before that may be considered a valid reason for departure. State v. Francis, 524 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In State v. Salony, 528 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the court found that the record supported the conclusion that the defendant had a drug addiction based on past crimes for which he was convicted and the crime for which he was being sentenced. We are not prepared to say whether…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1985)
- Young v. State, 455 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- State v. Mesa, 520 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Vance v. State, 475 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- State v. Thomas, 516 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- State v. Daughtry, 505 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Aleta Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 523 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Wilson, 523 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)