RICHARD DOW, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; MICHAEL DOW, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; EDDIE HARVEY, 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 affirmed the conviction despite the use of multiple juries, finding no reversible error.
The trial court used multiple juries due to a Bruton problem among the defendants. The defendants appealed, arguing reversible error.…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
In these appeals, which the court has consolidated on its own motion, the three defendants appeal their judgments and sentences arising from a series of “home invasions” that occurred between November 1988 and February 1989. The defendants were tried in a consolidated trial with three separate juries. We affirm all convictions. After reviewing the record in each case, we conclude that any errors complained of were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
We reverse the sentences imposed upon Richard Dow (No. 90-00392) and Eddie Harvey (No. 90-00415). In each of these cases, the trial court imposed incarceration for a term of years to be followed by concurrent life terms of imprisonment. These sentences represent departures from the recommended guidelines sentence of life imprisonment. Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1986); Speights v. State, 495 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 501 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986). Because the trial court did not realize it was departing from the sentencing guidelines in these cases, it may impose departure sentences on remand if supported by valid written reasons. State v. Vanhorn, 561 So. 2d 584 (Fla.1990).
We affirm Michael Dow’s sentences (No. 90-00413), because the trial court’s written reasons for departure were valid. See State v. Barfield, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1992); Hines v. State, 587 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Convictions and sentences imposed in case number 90-00413 affirmed. Convictions in case numbers 90-00392 and 90-00415 affirmed, but sentences imposed in those cases reversed and the cases remanded for resentencing.
PARKER, A.C.J., concurs.
PATTERSON, J., concurs specially with opinion.
PATTERSON, Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur because, notwithstanding the hazardous use of multiple juries, the defendants have failed to demonstrate any reversible error. The trial court invoked this procedure because a Bruton1 problem existed among all three defendants. I write to dispel any notion that we embrace the use of dual or multiple juries. However, I recognize the needs of the trial courts in attempting to deal with overcrowded trial calendars. In this case, the use of three juries resulted in a considerable savings of time because of the number of charges and witnesses involved. Nonetheless, the procedure is inherently error prone and should be discouraged.2
. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).
. Numerous other courts have expressed similar concerns. See, e.g., People v. Harris, 47 Cal.3d 1047, 255 Cal.Rptr. 352, 767 P. 2d 619 (1989); State v. Beam, 109 Idaho 616, 710 P. 2d 526 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1153, 106 S.Ct. 2260, 90 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986); State v. Lambright, 138 Ariz. 63, 673 P. 2d 1 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 892, 105 S.Ct. 267, 83 L.Ed.2d 203 (1984); State v. Corsi, 86 N.J. 172, 430 A. 2d 210 (1981); Scarborough v. State, 50 Md.App. 276, 437 A. 2d 672 (1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ivey v. State, 633 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…life sentence and the trial court imposes life plus a consecutive term of years, such sentence is a departure requiring written reasons. See Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1986); Wood v. State, 593 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Dow v. State, 610 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), dismissed, 621 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1993). The trial court failed to provide written reasons to support its decision to depart from the guidelines; therefore, we reverse the appellant’s sentence. The transcript of the sentencing hear…
-
Futrell v. State, 627 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…7-22 years rather than 12-27 years. However, because the trial judge was not aware that the sentence imposed was a departure sentence, the trial judge is given the opportunity to provide valid written reasons for a departure sentence. Dow v. State, 610 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), cause dismissed, 621 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1993) (citing State v. Vanhorn, 561 So. 2d 584 (Fla.1990)). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part. REMANDED for resentencing consistent with this opinion. PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Tobias Barfield v. State, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1992)
- Kemp v. Wilson, 476 U.S. 1153 (U.S. 1986)
- Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Vanhorn, 561 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1990)
- Lewis v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 469 U.S. 892 (U.S. 1984)
- Navios Corp. v. United States, 469 U.S. 892 (U.S. 1984)
- Speights v. State, 495 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Hines v. State, 587 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)