JAMES PATTERSON, 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.
James Patterson appealed his sentences for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, challenging the trial court's reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed the sentences, finding that although habitual offender status was an improper departure reason, valid alternative reasons supported the departure and the record showed harmless error.
The court held that while habitual offender status is an improper reason for departure from sentencing guidelines, the trial court set forth valid alternative reasons for the departure, and the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the invalid reason did not affect the sentence imposed.
[1] A defendant's habitual offender status is an improper reason for departing from sentencing guidelines.
[2] A departure sentence may be affirmed if the record reflects beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We agree that a defendant's habitual offender status is an improper reason to depart from the sentencing guidelines.”
Establishes the legal principle that habitual offender status cannot justify departure from guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatterson was convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated assault. At his original sentencing, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of fi…
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 Sentencing Range cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, James Patterson, challenges the sentences imposed upon him after he was convicted of second degree murder and aggravated assault. We affirm.
The appellant was tried and found guilty of second degree murder and aggravated assault. The trial court adjudicated him guilty of these offenses and sentenced him to concurrent sentences of fifty years in prison on the second degree murder charge and ten years in prison on the aggravated assault charge. Consecutive three year minimum mandatory sentences were also imposed. On appeal the state conceded that the appellate record did not reflect that a guidelines scoresheet had been prepared. We, accordingly, reversed and remanded for resentencing. Patterson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
On remand, a guidelines scoresheet indicating a sentencing range of between twenty-two and twenty-seven years with a recommended sentence of twenty-five years was produced and utilized by the trial court. This scoresheet was evidently prepared at the appellant’s original sentencing hearing but was not made part of the appellate record. The trial court imposed the same sentences upon the appellant and gave written reasons for departing from the guidelines. This timely appeal followed.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in using the habitual offender status as a reason for departure from the recommended guidelines sentence and that the other reasons given by the trial court for departing were invalid as well. We agree that a defendant’s habitual offender status is an improper reason to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). See also Wade v. State, 513 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We find, however, that the court did set forth valid reasons for departure, Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1987), see also Ledesma v. State, 528 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and the record reflects beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of any invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). We, accordingly, affirm.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1987)
- Doral Beach Hotel & Prof'l Administrators v. Sanchez, 528 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Wade v. State, 513 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Patterson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)