STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES DEAN DAVIS, 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.
The State appealed the sentencing of a defendant convicted of racketeering, robbery, kidnapping, and related charges, arguing the trial court used the wrong sentencing scoresheet and improperly departed downward. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court should have used the category nine scoresheet (providing the most severe sanction) rather than category four, but upheld two of three reasons for downward departure.
The trial court erred in utilizing the category four scoresheet because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(3) requires use of the scoresheet that recommends the most severe sentence range. The category nine scoresheet was required. Two of three departure reasons were valid: youthful age and cooperation with police were permissible reasons, but lack of prior significant criminal history was not.
[1] The sentencing guidelines scoresheet that recommends the most severe sentence range shall be utilized by the sentencing judge.
[2] Youthful age of an offender may be a valid reason for downward departure from the recommended sentencing guidelines range when supported by other reasons.
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“The guidelines scoresheet which recommends the most severe sentence range shall be the scoresheet to be utilized by the sentencing judge pursuant to these guidelines.”
Establishes the mandatory legal requirement to use the scoresheet with the most severe sanction, which the trial court violated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee pleaded guilty to multiple counts of racketeering, robbery, kidnapping, and carrying a concealed firearm. The trial court utilized a category…
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 Downward Departure From Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The state contends on appeal that the trial court utilized the wrong scoresheet in sentencing appellee, and erred in departing downward from the recommended guideline range. We reverse for computation of appellee’s sentence using the correct score-sheet; however, we find that two of the three reasons given for departure are valid and may be used again to depart downward.
Appellee plead guilty to multiple counts of racketeering, robbery, kidnapping, and carrying a concealed firearm. The court utilized a category four scoresheet with a corresponding recommended sentence of twenty to twenty-seven years imprisonment in sentencing appellee. The state urges that the court was required to use a category nine scoresheet and score racketeering as the primary offense because that scoresheet provides the most severe sanction—life imprisonment.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(3) provides: “(b) The guidelines scoresheet which recommends the most severe sentence range shall be the scoresheet to be utilized by the sentencing judge pursuant to these guidelines.” The court utilized scoresheet category four which is titled “Violent Personal Crimes” and covers the crimes of assault, battery, and culpable negligence as well as defamation, libel, and similar offenses. The rule is clear. The court erred in utilizing the category four scoresheet, because scoring racketeering as the primary offense on the category nine scoresheet provided the most severe sanction. At sentencing, the trial court gave three reasons for a downward departure. The first reason, the youthful age of an offender, has been held to be valid where there are other reasons supporting departure. We find this to be a valid reason under the circumstances of this case. See State v. Myers, 515 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The second reason, the lack of any prior significant criminal history, is not valid. Sanders v. State, 510 So. 2d 296 (Fla.1987). The third reason, the appellee’s cooperation with the police, is valid. See Moore v. State, 498 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Appellee gave the police information resulting in the arrest of three co-defendants, and in solving numerous other crimes. The police officers who received this information testified on appellee’s behalf. Because appellee’s cooperation with the police is supported by the record and is undisputed, this is a valid reason for departure.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing utilizing a category nine guidelines score-sheet. At resentencing, the judge may again use the valid reasons previously given for departure.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ertel, 886 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ence. In State v. Collins, 482 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), the Fifth District observed that the record did not support departure on the basis of cooperation where the assistance did not result in solving any crimes. See also State v. Davis, 537 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (stating that defendant’s cooperation was sufficient to support downward departure where defendant gave police information resulting in three arrests and solving numerous other crimes). Ertel’s actions, as described by his counsel…
-
State v. Whiddon, 554 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…trial). . Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(l)(I) permits the state to appeal an illegal sentence. . See State v. Ashley, 549 So. 2d 226, 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Bryant, 546 So. 2d 1112, 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Davis, 537 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Riley, 530 So. 2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Collins, 482 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).…
-
State v. Carlton Davis, 538 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…years imprisonment. The state urges that the court was required to use a category nine score-sheet and score racketeering as the primary offense because that scoresheet provides the most severe sanction — life imprisonment. Based on State v. Davis, 537 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), a related case involving the same criminal transactions, we hold that the court erred in using the category four scoresheet. With respect to the downward departure in sentence, the trial court gave the following reasons: (1) the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanders v. State, 510 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Myers, 515 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Moore v. State, 498 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)