LARRY LIPPMAN, 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.
The court held that a written reason for departure, when combined with oral findings of escalating criminal activity, can constitute a valid basis for departing from sentencing guidelines.
[1] A "continuing course of conduct" is an invalid reason for departure from sentencing guidelines without the additional factor of escalation in criminal activity.
[2] An escalating pattern of criminal activity, demonstrating increasingly serious criminal activity, constitutes a valid reason for departure 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 intelligenceAppellant challenged his sentence, arguing the trial court's stated reason for departure from sentencing guidelines was invalid. The trial court cited…
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 Guidelines Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his sentence as an improper departure from the sentencing guidelines. We affirm.
The trial court in its order wrote “continuing course of conduct” as its reason for departure. This reason has been held invalid without the additional factor of escalation in criminal activity. See Barfield v. State, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1992); Smith v. State, 579 So. 2d 75 (Fla.1991). In pronouncing the sentence, however, it is apparent from the transcript that the judge was departing based on an escalating course or pattern of criminal activity. This intention is articulated in the judge's factual findings that the seriousness of the degree of prior crimes committed by the appellant ranged from drug misdemeanors to the third degree felony of possession of cocaine, while the current offense for which appellant was being sentenced was the second degree felony of sale of cocaine.
An escalating pattern of criminal activity demonstrating a pattern of “increasingly serious criminal activity” constitutes a valid reason for departure. See Barfield v. State, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1992). “Increasingly serious criminal activity” is demonstrated by an increase in the degree of crime for the current charges when compared to the previous offenses committed. The second degree felony for which the appellant was being sentenced evidences an increase in the degree of crime when compared with the appellant’s previous offenses of misdemeanors and a third degree felony. While we recognize that the trial judge did not write the precise term “escalating pattern of criminal conduct”, we think the written description of the departure reason as “continuing course of conduct”, considered together with the trial judge’s recitation of appellant’s pattern of escalating crimes, equates with that term under the particular circumstances of this case and does not warrant our reversal. See Taylor v. State, 601 So. 2d 540, (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence.
Affirmed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lemuel Isaac v. State, 989 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…. 2d at 34. Appellant’s convictions began with misdemeanors and, over the course of two to three years, escalated to a considerable number of first-degree felonies involving violent crimes and, notably, the use of firearms. Compare Lippman v. State, 602 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (finding an escalating pattern of criminal activity where Lippman’s convictions ranged from drug misdemeanors to third and then second-degree felonies of possession and then escalated to sale of cocaine), with Harvey v. State, 954…
-
Bryant L. Shaw v. State, 615 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ible if the instant offenses represent an escalating pattern of criminal activity. An escalating pattern of criminal activity is defined as “increasingly serious criminal activity.” See Barfield v. State, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1992); Lippman v. State, 602 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Increasingly serious criminal activity is demonstrated by an increase in the degree of crime for the current charges when compared to the previous offenses committed. Lippman at 648. There is nothing in this record demonstrating…
Authorities Cited
- Tobias Barfield v. State, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1992)
- Taylor v. State, 601 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1992)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions Crim. Cases-No. 90-1, 579 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1990)