THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LAVELL PORTER, 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 State appealed a trial court's downward departure from sentencing guidelines for grand theft, claiming the court erred in reducing the sentence based on substance abuse and amenability to rehabilitation. The appellate court affirmed, holding that substance abuse combined with sincere efforts toward rehabilitation and a showing of potential to reverse prior addiction constitutes valid grounds for downward departure.
The court held that the trial court did not err in imposing a downward departure sentence. Substance abuse combined with evidence of amenability to rehabilitation—including the defendant's sincere admission of his drug problem, expressed strong desire to rehabilitate himself, and efforts to place himself in drug-free environments—constitutes valid grounds for downward departure from sentencing guidelines.
[1] Substance abuse is a valid reason for downward departure from sentencing guidelines when it substantially impaired the defendant's mind at the time of the crime or when t…
[2] A defendant's amenability to rehabilitation due to substance abuse requires a showing that reasonably indicates the defendant has the potential to reverse a prior life of…
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“Substance abuse is a valid reason for downward departure where the substance abuse substantially impaired the defendant's mind at the time the crime was committed, Barbera v. State, 505 So.2d 413 (Fla.1987), or where there is a finding of substance abuse and an amenability to rehabilitation, Herrin v. State, 568 So.2d 920 (Fla.1990).”
Establishes the two alternative legal bases for downward departure based on substance abuse.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLavell Porter, with several prior offenses, was convicted of grand theft. At sentencing, Porter admitted his drug problem and expressed a strong desir…
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 Amenability To Rehabilitation cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, Judge.
Appellant, the State of Florida, seeks reversal of appellee, Lavell Porter’s, sentence claiming that the trial court erred in departing downward from the sentencing guidelines. We affirm.
Porter, who had several prior offenses, faced sentencing for grand theft. The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and determined that Porter, “admitted [his drug] problem and says he’s ready for help, and I believe that there was drug involvement in the prior cases and that this might be his chance at straightening his life out.” The trial court then sentenced Porter below the guidelines.
Substance abuse is a valid reason for downward departure where the substance abuse substantially impaired the defendant’s mind at the time the crime was committed, Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1987), or where there is a finding of substance abuse and an amenability to rehabilitation, Herrin v. State, 568 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1990). See State v. Bledsoe, 538 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Forbes, 536 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In determining whether a defendant who abuses drugs is amenable to rehabilitation, this court has recently noted that there must be some showing which “reasonably indicates that the defendant has the potential to reverse his/her prior life of drug addiction and is otherwise sincere in a desire to live a drug-free life.” State v. Gordon, 645 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Here, the record repeatedly reflects that Porter readily admitted his substance abuse problem. He clearly expressed a strongly motivated desire to rehabilitate himself.
Porter explained that his involvement with crime and his prior convictions resulted from “taking crack and ... drinking the Wild Irish Rose, you have to do what you can to get it. The dope paved a hell of a road for me to get to the point where I am.” When asked whether he would be able to benefit from a drug treatment program, Porter responded: ‘Tes, ma’am, because I need the help.... [R]ight now things are looking beautiful for the reason I’m in a job position. I’m not in the area I can touch [drugs], and I’m on the mercy of the Court. I need the help and I’m willing to go into a program to help myself. I’m not ready to go nowhere unless there’s a program.” The trial court was aware of Porter’s efforts to rehabilitate himself by working at the jail in an area where he would not be exposed to drugs.
Judicial discretion in sentencing involves more than the mere autonomous matching of marks on a guidelines matrix. Judges, after all, are not a race of computers. Because of the humanistic side of judging, compassion has always had an honored place in the administration of justice. This experienced trial judge, moved by the sincerity of the human being before her, left the constrictions of the sentencing guidelines. We are loath to interfere with the trial court’s legally sanctioned discretion under Herrin and Barbera. See Marsh v. Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1982); State v. Fink, 557 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
In conclusion, the trial court’s finding that there was a reasonable possibility Porter could achieve his stated desire to rehabilitate himself is supported by competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm Porter’s downward departure sentence based upon the defendant’s drug addiction and amenability to rehabilitation.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rodriguez, 673 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…he evidence presented at the sentencing hearing was arguably — though cur-ably — insufficient under the Barbera 1Herrin2 rule, compare State v. Gordon, 645 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 652 So. 2d 816 (Fla.1995) with State v. Porter, 659 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), the downward departure sentence imposed below is affirmed because the state made no contemporaneous claim to that effect and thus did not preserve the issue. See Evans v. State, 619 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Santini v. Stat…
-
State v. Krueger, 664 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…Krueger was amenable to treatment. Consequently, since in this case there was no finding of a reasonable possibility of success in a rehabilitative program, this reason for the downward departure sentence ordered likewise fails. See State v. Porter, 659 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court made the necessary finding of a reasonable possibility of successful rehabilitation to support downward departure); State v. Kimble, 651 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (essential finding of amenability to treatment su…
-
State v. Parker, 733 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…nt that he or she is a fit subject to rehabilitation is needed. State v. Bostick, 715 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State v. Gordon, 645 So. 2d 140, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Compare, Herrin v. State, 568 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla.1990); State v. Porter, 659 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). This record contains little more than that. Porter. See also Bostick; State v. Stutsman, 566 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Sentence VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing pursuant to plea agreement. THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ„ concur…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1987)
- Marsh v. Laurel J. Ising Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1982)
- Herrin v. State, 568 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Gordon, 645 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Pastor v. State, 536 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Forbes, 536 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Bledsoe, 538 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Fink, 557 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)