LILLIE BELL MOBLEY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a departure sentence for felony petit theft because the trial judge's stated reasons—prior convictions and similar course of conduct—constituted mere repetitiveness rather than a meaningful pattern of criminal conduct sufficient to justify departure from sentencing guidelines.
A departure sentence based solely on prior convictions and repetitive criminal conduct, without showing a meaningful pattern beyond mere repetitiveness, violates sentencing guidelines and must be reversed.
[1] A departure sentence based solely on recitation of prior convictions without demonstrating a meaningful pattern of criminal conduct beyond mere repetitiveness violates se…
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 intelligenceLillie Bell Mobley was convicted of felony petit theft and sentenced above the recommended guidelines range based on the trial judge's findings of sim…
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 Prior Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a departure sentence. The appellant contends that the trial judge erred when he sentenced her upon a conviction for felony petit theft giving the following as the departure reasons: similar course of conduct; at least four to six prior convictions. The appellant's contention is based upon Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985), in that the departure reasons only constitute prior record, a factor already taken into consideration on the scoresheet. The state would have this case controlled by Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1987), which allowed a departure sentence based upon a pattern of criminal conduct and the time sequence of the commission of the offenses in relation to prior offenses and the defendant’s release from incarceration or supervision. Inasmuch as the departure order which we review does not show any pattern beyond that of mere repetitiveness, unlike Williams, and only restates the fact that the appellant has previous convictions, we cannot distinguish this case from Hendrix. Therefore, we affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence; we remand for resentencing within the recommended guidelines range. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987).
THREADGILL, A.C.J., ALTENBERND, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Browning v. State, 625 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…titute a “persistent” pattern of violence against law enforcement. Nor does this show an escalating pattern of criminal conduct which can be sanctioned as a written reason for departure. See State v. Jones, 530 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1988); Mobley v. State, 548 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Mooney v. State, 516 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Reasons one and two are also insubstantial because the prior crimes had already been factored into Browning’s guideline sentence as his prior criminal record to arrive at the p…
Authorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1987)