VASTEN E. BLAIR, 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.
Vasten Blair appealed his convictions for armed robbery and first-degree murder, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress incriminating statements and his sentence. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing, finding the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and failing to issue written reasons for departure from sentencing guidelines at the time of sentencing.
The court affirmed the convictions, finding the consent to search was voluntary and not coerced, but reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences arising from a single continuous criminal episode and failed to issue written reasons for departure at the time of sentencing as required by recent precedent.
[1] A consent to search is voluntary if it is not the product of coercion.
[2] An escalating pattern of criminal activity can be a proper basis for departing from sentencing guidelines.
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“We affirm the judgment of guilt on both counts, finding ample evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the consent to search given by appellant's girlfriend, which eventually led to appellant's arrest and subsequent statements, was given voluntarily and not improperly coerced.”
Establishes the court's affirmance of convictions based on valid consent to search
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlair was arrested following a consensual search of his girlfriend's residence that led to incriminating statements. The trial court sentenced him to …
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 Escalating Pattern Of Criminal Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
Appellant/defendant appeals his judgment for armed robbery and first-degree murder, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress two incriminating statements made following his arrest. Appellant also challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court, alleging several bases for reversal.
We affirm the judgment of guilt on both counts, finding ample evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the consent to search given by appellant’s girlfriend, which eventually led to appellant’s arrest and subsequent statements, was given voluntarily and not improperly coerced. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968).
With regard to appellant’s sentence, however, we find it necessary to reverse in part and remand for resentencing. At a hearing on March 23, 1989, the trial court sentenced appellant on the first-degree murder count to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years. On the armed robbery count, the trial court departed from the recommended guideline sentence of 12-17 years and sentenced appellant to life imprisonment with a three-year mandatory minimum, to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for first-degree murder. Although the trial court announced at the hearing that its departure was based on appellant’s escalating pattern of criminal activity, the written order listing this reason was not prepared until after the hearing, and was not filed until March 28, 1989 —-five days after the hearing.
Initially, we find that the trial court’s reason for departure on the armed robbery count was proper. The facts in the record clearly support a pattern of criminal activity escalating from nonviolent property crimes to escape, disorderly conduct, aggravated battery, weapons charges, and finally, in the instant case, armed robbery and first-degree murder. Under these facts, the trial court properly departed from the recommended guilde-lines sentence based on an escalating pattern of criminality. Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1986); section 921.001(8), Florida Statutes (1987).
We find that the court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, however, as the evidence establishes that the two offenses arose from a single continuous criminal episode. Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). Additionally, the supreme court has recently held in Ree v. State (Fla.1989), opinion filed November 16, 1989 [14 F.L.W. 565], that written reasons for departure must be issued at the time sentence is pronounced. Since written reasons in the instant case were not entered until after the March 23, 1989 sentencing hearing, reversal for resentencing according to Ree is required.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of guilt on both counts, affirm the sentence in part, and reverse and remand for resentencing. The trial court is instructed that any mandatory minimum sentences must be imposed concurrently, and is directed to follow the mandates of Ree v. State, supra, with regard to the entry of written reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines.
WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Downs v. State, 616 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1993)…the crimes he committed arising out of the same criminal episode may only be imposed concurrently and not consecutively. Here there were separate distinct crimes, each of which required a minimum mandatory sentence. . We disapprove Blair v. State, 559 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), quashed in part, 598 So. 2d 1068 (Fla.1992), wherein the court disallowed stacking a 25-year minimum mandatory sentence for first-degree murder and a three-year minimum for using a firearm during a robbery.…
-
Vasten E. Blair v. State, 598 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1992)…PER CURIAM. We originally accepted jurisdiction to review Blair v. State, 559 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), because of apparent conflict with Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990), and Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. Thereafter, this Court issued several opinions bearing upon the disputed i…
-
Downs v. State, 592 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…that the stacking of minimum mandatory sentences is limited to cases involving only capital felonies, rather than to the situation in this case, that is, a capital felony and a third-degree felony [*764] committed with a firearm. See Blair v. State, 559 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Nevertheless, we affirm the imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences in this case, as in accordance with the supreme court’s mandate, but certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of…
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
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1968)
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1986)