WILLIE GORDON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The temporal proximity of a defendant's instant offense and recent release from supervision is not a valid basis for departure from sentencing guidelines absent evidence of an escalating pattern of criminal conduct.
Willie Gordon was convicted of grand theft, released from supervision, and committed another grand theft offense. The trial court imposed a departure …
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 Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
HARDING, Justice.
We have for review Gordon v. State, 573 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), which certified the same question of great public importance we have answered in Barfield v. State, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1992). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
Willie Gordon (Gordon) was convicted of three counts of grand theft, sentenced to prison, and subsequently transferred to a supervised-release program. Five months after discharge from the supervised-release program, Gordon committed the instant grand theft offense. The trial court imposed a departure sentence based upon the “Defendant’s recent release from custody and/or supervision.” On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the departure sentence and certified the same question that was certified in Bar-field.
In Barfield, we answered the certified question in the negative, but found that the temporal proximity of crimes can be a valid basis for departure from the sentencing guidelines if indicative of an escalating pattern of criminal conduct. We approved the departure sentence in Barfield because the defendant’s offenses involved an escalating pattern of criminal conduct as evidenced by the increase in the possible sentence from the first offense to the second.
The instant case involves successive grand theft offenses, with no evidence of an escalating pattern of criminal conduct such as that present in Barfield. Thus, the temporal proximity of the instant offense and Gordon’s recent release from supervision were not valid reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines.
Accordingly, the opinion below is quashed and this case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Barfield.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J. and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cave v. State, 661 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1995)…For this reason, we hold that the district court’s majority below was correct in examining the record to determine if the requisite pattern existed notwithstanding the failure of the trial court to make the precise finding. Accord Gordon,' v. State, 594 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1992). The confusion suggested by the certified question apparently has arisen because of State v. Dodd, 594 So. 2d 263 (Fla.1992), which issued contemporaneously with Bar-field. There, we approved the reversal of a departure sentence based o…
-
Angle v. State, 604 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…, “increasingly serious criminal activity” is indicated when the current charge involves an increase in either the degree of crime or the sentence which may be imposed, when compared with the defendant’s previous offenses. See also Gordon v. State, 594 So. 2d 262 (Fla.1992) (“the temporal proximity of crimes can be a valid basis for departure from the sentencing guidelines if indicative of an escalating pattern of criminal conduct.”) The record in this case reflects that appellant’s crimes do not fall withi…
-
Smith v. State, 608 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…nding that appellant’s continuing pattern of criminal activity also included an escalating pattern of criminal conduct as evidenced by the increase in the possible sentences from the [*90] earlier offenses to the later offenses. See Gordon v. State, 594 So. 2d 262 (Fla.1992). We, therefore, affirm appellant’s convictions. However, because we find neither of the reasons given to support departure to be valid, we reverse appellant’s sentences and remand for the imposition of sentences within the recommended g…
Authorities Cited
- Tobias Barfield v. State, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1992)
- Serge v. Robertson, 573 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)