GARY R. FOX, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1989-12-28
No. 87-0884
GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and WARNER, JJ., concur.
554 So. 2d 627 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1989)

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.

Synopsis

Gary Fox appeals his conviction and sentence for white-collar crimes involving the operation of United Precious Metals, Inc., which lost over $11 million in customer funds. The court affirms the convictions but reverses the 50-year sentence as an abuse of discretion, finding it excessive under Florida's sentencing guidelines.


Holding

The court affirms all convictions without discussion. However, the court reverses the 50-year sentence as an abuse of discretion and remands for resentencing, finding that only one departure reason (unscored felonies) was valid and the sentence was excessive compared to the recommended guideline range.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant must be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of the crime, not at the time of sentencing.

[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by imposing a sentence that is six times the recommended guideline range.

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

Key Quotes

“defendants in Florida must be sentenced under the guidelines in effect at the time of their crime rather than the time of sentencing”

Establishes the controlling legal principle from Miller v. Florida requiring application of guidelines in effect when the crime was committed, not when sentencing occurred

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Fox operated United Precious Metals, Inc. between 1981 and 1983, during which the company sustained losses of over $11 million in customer money and f…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence entered after a two-month trial involving certain white-collar crimes stemming from appellant’s operation of United Precious Metals, Inc. (UPM), a company in the business of selling precious metals between 1981 and 1983. During its two years of operation losses of customer money of over eleven million dollars were sustained by UPM; the business filed for bankruptcy in 1983.

On October 27, 1986 and December 29, 1986, appellant was charged with 1) one count of racketeering (RICO); 2) one count of conspiracy to commit RICO; 3) one count of “organized fraud”; 4) fourteen counts of first degree grand theft; 5) forty-eight counts of grand theft; 6) twenty-three counts of selling unregistered securities; 7) twenty-three counts of selling securities by an unregistered dealer; and 8) twenty-three counts of selling fraudulent securities. See §§ 895.02, 895.03(4), 812.-014, 517.07, 517.12 and 517.301, Fla.Stat. On March 11, 1987, after jury trial, appellant was convicted of 1) RICO; 2) organized fraud; 3) twelve counts of first degree grand theft; 4) thirty counts of grand theft; 5) seventeen counts of selling unregistered securities; 6) seventeen counts of selling securities by an unregistered dealer; and 7) seventeen counts of selling fraudulent securities.

Appellant was initially sentenced March 26, 1987 to a total of five hundred seventy five years incarceration for those offenses occurring prior to the institution of the sentencing guidelines in 1983, to a consecutive sentence of ten years’ incarceration pursuant to the guidelines in effect in 1987, and to a concurrent sentence of thirty years’ probation on the racketeering and organized fraud counts. Appellant filed his initial notice of appeal on March 27, 1987.

On June 9, 1987, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987), holding that defendants in Florida must be sentenced under the guidelines in effect at the time of their crime rather than the time of sentencing. Whereupon, appellant requested this court to relinquish jurisdiction so he could be resentenced under the 1983 version of the sentencing guidelines. He was resen-tenced under the 1983 guidelines and received a recommended sentence range of four and a half to five and a half years incarceration. The trial court sentenced him to a guidelines departure sentence of fifty years imprisonment, thirty years probation and fines and restitution. We affirm the convictions without discussion, but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Of the individual reasons given by the trial court for departure, we conclude that only the first is valid; namely, the eight second-degree felonies and seventy-seven third-degree felonies not scored' on the scoresheet. See Russell v. State, 458 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), approved, 472 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1985).

We further conclude that the fifty-year sentence was an abuse of discretion, and note that we have previously rejected sentences six times the recommended score in Campos v. State, 515 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and five times the recommended score in McBride v. State, 477 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).1

GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and WARNER, JJ., concur. . On July 26, 1986, section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes, was amended. The amendment restricted a defendant’s right to appellate review of his sentence to improper reasons only, rather than extent of departure also. This does not affect our decision herein because retroactive application of the amendment is prohibited. Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351; Campos v. State, 515 So. 2d 1358.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw