DANIEL L. CRAWFORD, 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 the imposition of consecutive sentences for offenses arising from the same incident, when those convictions were considered in computing a recommended sentence, constitutes a departure from the sentencing guidelines.
[1] Convictions for aggravated battery and sexual battery with great force or a deadly weapon do not violate double jeopardy when the evidence shows distinct acts for each of…
[2] Imposing consecutive sentences on counts arising from the same incident, when those convictions were considered in computing a recommended sentence, constitutes a departu…
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 was convicted of multiple offenses including sexual battery and aggravated battery arising from a single criminal episode. The trial court i…
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 Written Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Daniel L. Crawford appeals his numerous convictions and sentences. We reject Crawford’s argument that his convictions for aggravated battery and sexual battery with great force or a deadly weapon violate the proscription against double jeopardy and affirm his convictions. The evidence clearly shows that Crawford committed a distinct act of aggravated battery, separate from the sexual battery. See Robinson v. State, 575 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Williams v. State, 565 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We reverse Crawford’s sentence, however, because the trial court imposed a departure sentence without giving written reasons.
Crawford was convicted of three counts of sexual battery with a deadly weapon or great force, one count of armed burglary and one count of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The record reveals that the offenses occurred in one criminal episode. The sentencing guidelines seoresheet recommended life imprisonment. The trial court imposed concurrent life sentences for each of the sexual battery offenses. It also imposed a consecutive life sentence for the armed burglary and a consecutive fifteen-year sentence for the aggravated battery.
The imposition of consecutive sentences on counts arising from the same incident, when those convictions were taken into account in computing a recommended sentence, is a departure from the guidelines. Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1986); Lee v. State, 648 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for the departure, Crawford must be resentenced. There is no indication in the record that the trial court intended to impose a departure sentence. Therefore, on resentencing, the trial court may again depart from the guidelines if it provides valid written reasons for doing so. See State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989); Henderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 589 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1991).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Crosby, 857 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…e, the trial court may sentence each count to the legal maximum, and may impose the sentences consecutively, even if the sentences arise out of the same criminal episode. See Cleveland v. State, 673 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Crawford v. State, 666 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The sentences imposed upon the defendant are legal, and do not create any double jeopardy violation. Different rules apply where a trial court wishes to impose consecutive habitual offender sentences, see Hale v. State, 630 So.…
-
King v. State, 718 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See, Keough v. State, 714 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Crawford v. State, 666 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Andrews v. State, 533 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1989); Jackson v. State, 456 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Duke v. State, 444 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA), approved on other grounds, 456 So.…
-
Lysirick D. Taylor v. State, 718 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Crawford v. State, 666 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Sanders v. State, 621 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA),. rev. denied, 629 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1993); Robinson v. State, 575 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 589 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1991). DAUKSCH, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989)
- Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1986)
- Henderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Ritteman v. Dep't of Env't Reg., 565 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- British Robinson v. State, 575 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- LEE v. State, 648 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)