WILFRED KNOX, 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.
Court reversed a thirty-year sentence for strong-arm robbery where the trial court improperly relied on four invalid departure reasons from sentencing guidelines, requiring resentencing based only on three valid reasons.
When a trial court departs from sentencing guidelines based on multiple reasons and some are invalid, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same without the invalid reasons, or the sentence must be reversed and remanded for resentencing.
[1] When a sentencing court departs from guidelines based on multiple reasons and some are invalid, the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the s…
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 intelligenceKnox was convicted of strong-arm robbery, a second-degree felony. The sentencing guidelines recommended nine to twelve years, but the trial court depa…
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 Habitual Offender Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wilfred Knox appeals his sentence of thirty years’ incarceration. We reverse.
Knox was convicted of strong-arm robbery, a second-degree felony under section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), punishable by a statutory maximum of fifteen years’ incarceration under section 775.-082(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). The sentencing guidelines recommended range was nine-to-twelve years’ incarceration. The trial court departed from the presumptive guidelines sentence and sentenced Knox to the statutory maximum and listed seven written reasons for exceeding the guidelines. The trial court subsequently granted the state’s motion to enhance Knox’s sentence under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, and increased Knox’s sentence to thirty years’ incarceration.
The state concedes that four of the seven departure reasons are invalid. Although the trial court indicated that each reason, standing alone, would warrant departure, we find that the state has not met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same without the invalid reasons. Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.1987); Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985); State v. Mesa, 520 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We, therefore, reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the three remaining reasons for departure and resentence Knox accordingly.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walt Witt and Arlene Lovas v. Dolphin Research Ctr., Inc., 582 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…rial on that ground.1 In the light of the fact that the case must be tried in any event, we deem it inappropriate at this time to rule on the issues of (a) whether the strict liability principles involving wild animals, see e.g., Sharp v. Levine, 528 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Isaacs v. Powell, 267 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), overruled on other grounds, 358 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1978), are applicable to the supposed friendly aquatic mammals involved here and (b) whether, if so, the terms of the releases wo…
-
Knox v. State, 549 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…entencing where the trial judge1 had shown substantial difficulty in putting out of his mind reasons which should not have been a factor in a decision to exceed the sentencing guidelines. We reversed this same thirty-year sentence in Knox v. State, 528 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), on grounds that four of seven reasons given for the departure were invalid. Two of the four invalid reasons were (1) the defendant committed the crime against a victim who was particularly vulnerable, and (2) the victim was over…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Mesa, 520 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)