ANTHONY D. MAUNEY, 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.
Trial court's upward departure from sentencing guidelines based on defendant's recent release from prison was affirmed because defendant failed to object at sentencing, distinguishing cases requiring objection to hearsay evidence.
An upward departure from sentencing guidelines based on recent release from prison is affirmed when the defendant fails to make a contemporaneous objection at sentencing.
[1] Upward departure from sentencing guidelines based on recent release from prison is affirmed when defendant fails to make contemporaneous objection at sentencing, as such…
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 intelligence“departure is justified where only 'a short period of time' has transpired between the crime at issue and release from incarceration for some other transgression”
Court citing established precedent supporting upward departure based on recent release from prison
The trial court departed upward from the recommended guideline range at sentencing, noting on the scoresheet that the defendant had recently been rele…
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 Criminal Record cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
When sentencing the defendant, the trial court departed upward from the recommended guideline range. The scoresheet included the written words “recent release from prison.” This notation was apparently the only reason for the departure and was based on an oral representation to that effect by the assistant state attorney. No objection was made. We affirm.
There are several cases standing for the proposition that departure is justified where only “a short period of time” has transpired between the crime at issue arid release from incarceration for some other transgression. Lee v. State, 537 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see also Williams v. State, 484 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), affirmed, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1987). It is true that in Lovett v. State, 536 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), we found hearsay testimony, as to a prior record, insufficient. However, in Lovett, the defense “strongly objected” to the hearsay testimony at sentencing. In the ease at bar, no objection was made, and because this involved the existence of a factual question, there should have been a contemporaneous objection. State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045, 1046, n. 2 (Fla.1986); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978). We find no merit to the remaining point on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
GARRETT and WARNER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tobias Barfield v. State, 564 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…nd to be a continuing threat to the community and appears to show absolutely no sign of rehabilitation since he has committed another Trafficking in Cocaine offense within a very short time of his release from prison. This court in Mauney v. State, 553 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), upheld an upward departure “where only ‘a short period of time’ ha[d] transpired between the crime at issue and release from incarceration for some other transgression.” Id. at 707 (emphasis added); citing, Lee v. State, 537 So.…
-
Alphonso Jordan v. State, 562 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…e that under Ree v. State, 14 F.L.W. 565 (Fla. Nov. 16, 1989),1 this would normally require reversal. However, in the case at bar, written reasons were articulated on the scoresheet and we hold that is sufficient to satisfy Ree. See Mauney v. State, 553 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, we affirm. The public defender additionally points out that the trial judge did not personally sign the scoresheet, but we do not believe his actual signature is required. The reasons for departure as noted on the…
-
Wilson v. Singletary, 601 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…failure to submit as supplemental authorities Florida Supreme Court opinions which “may have suggested nascent development of relevant doctrine” on the issue, did not fall outside the range of professionally acceptable performance); Mauney v. State, 553 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (departure sentence based on short interval between release from prison [*312] and commitment of new offense upheld); Barfield v. State, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1992) (to extent opinion in State v. Jones, 530 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1988), ap…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1987)
- Williams v. State, 484 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Lovett v. State, 536 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Buchman v. Fishbein, 537 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- LEE v. State, 537 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)