JOSEPH LEON STOWERS, 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, this court reconsidered appellant Stowers' departure sentence from the sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed the departure sentence, finding that at least one valid reason (escalating pattern of criminal conduct) supported the departure, even though other reasons cited by the trial court were invalid.
The court affirmed the departure sentence, holding that although two of the four reasons were invalid, the valid reason of escalating pattern of criminal conduct subsumed the invalid reasons and independently justified the departure. The invalid reasons need not be disregarded under Albritton if at least one valid reason independently supports the same sentence.
[1] A departure sentence may be affirmed if at least one valid reason for departure exists, even if other reasons are invalid, provided the valid reason subsumes the invalid…
[2] A trial court's statement that it would depart from sentencing guidelines for any one of the reasons given, regardless of the validity of all reasons, does not satisfy th…
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“although reasons one and four are invalid, these reasons are subsumed by the more inclusive valid second reason given — that defendant should be given a departure sentence because of his escalating pattern of criminal activity”
Establishes that invalid reasons can be disregarded if subsumed by a valid reason supporting the same sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStowers received a departure sentence from the sentencing guidelines based on four written reasons: (1) prior record showing he was a non-rehabilitati…
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 case is before the court on remand from the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration of appellant’s departure sentence. Stowers v. State, 504 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), disapproved and remanded, Stowers v. State, 534 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.1988). We affirm.
Appellant was given a departure sentence based upon the following written reasons: (1) defendant’s prior record demonstrates he is a non-rehabilitative career criminal; (2) defendant has engaged in an escalating pattern of criminal conduct; (3) defendant employed a professional manner in the commission of the crimes; and (4) defendant’s guidelines sentence was insuf ficient to provide appropriate retribution, deterrence, or rehabilitation.
Upon our initial review of this case, we were of the opinion that at least one of the reasons was valid. Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1986); Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla.1986); and Dickey v. State, 458 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See more recently, Rodrique v. State, 533 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Because the trial court had included boiler plate language to the effect that it would depart on the basis of any one of the reasons given, we simply affirmed without an Albritton analysis (Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), and certified to the Florida Supreme Court the same question framed in VanTassell v. State, 498 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986):
DOES A TRIAL COURT’S STATEMENT, MADE AT THE TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING'1 GUIDELINES, THAT IT WOULD DEPART FOR ANY ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BOTH VALID AND INVALID REASONS ARE FOUND ON REVIEW, SATISFY THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN ALBRITTON V. STATE?
Subsequently; the Supreme Court disapproved this boiler plate language in Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.1987), and VanTassell v. State, 512 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1987); and when presented with the same question in this case, the court reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of Griffis and VanTassell. Stowers v. State, 534 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.1988).
Upon reconsideration, this court is of the view that although reasons one and four are invalid, these reasons are subsumed by the more inclusive valid second reason given — that defendant should be given a departure sentence because of his escalating pattern of criminal activity. Scott v. State, 508 So. 2d 335 (Fla.1987); Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1987); Silveira v. State, 525 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); and Ruiz v. State, 516 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 880 (Fla.1988). Applying the test of Albritton v. State, supra, we are convinced that even disregarding the trial court’s boiler plate language, the departure sentence would have been the same without the invalid reasons.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 575 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1991)…ther the burden is "clear and convincing" or a mere "preponderance.” . Campbell v. State, 558 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Rivera v. State, 543 So. 2d 441 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); D’Angelo v. State, 541 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Stowers v. State, 541 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 548 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1989); Collins v. State, 535 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Krebs v. State, 534 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), review denied, 542 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1989); Rodrique v. State, 533 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1s…
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1987)
- Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1986)
- Griffis v. State, 509 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1987)
- Scott v. State, 508 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 1987)
- Winford Lee Dickey v. State, 458 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Vantassell v. State, 512 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1987)
- Gill v. Gill, 504 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)