WILLIAM CHAD ROUTENBERG, 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.
William Chad Routenberg appeals his life sentence imposed for violating probation on a sexual battery conviction. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the trial court improperly departed from sentencing guidelines by relying on reasons that either did not exist at the time of initial sentencing or related to the probation violation itself.
The departure was improper. Because none of the trial judge's justifications for departure existed at the time of the initial sentencing for the original offense, they are invalid. Additionally, factors relating to violation of probation cannot be used as a ground for departure from guidelines.
[1] A trial court may not depart from the recommended sentencing guideline range based on factors that arose after the initial sentencing for the original offense.
[2] Factors relating to a violation of probation cannot serve as a ground for departure from the sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because none of the justifications existed at the time of the initial sentencing for the original offense, they are invalid.”
Establishes that departure reasons must have existed at initial sentencing, not later at probation violation sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt age 14, Routenberg pleaded guilty to sexual battery on an 11-year-old girl and was sentenced to six years in the Department of Corrections followed…
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.
FRANK, Judge.
William Chad Routenberg appeals from a life sentence imposed upon him after he violated probation for a sexual battery offense. Routenberg correctly contends that the trial court’s departure from the recommended guideline range was improper. We recognize that Routenberg engaged in some serious criminal behavior at a young age. As a 14-year old, he was charged with one count of sexual battery on an 11-year old girl. He eventually pleaded guilty, and the trial court found that juvenile sanctions were inappropriate. Routenberg was then sentenced to six years in the Department of Corrections followed by ten years probation. At the time of sentencing, the trial court noted that additional sexual battery and lewd and lascivious behavior charges were pending against him.
After being at the Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys, with little success toward achievement of rehabilitation, Routenberg was released in December of 1993 to the adult supervision phase of his sentence. Shortly thereafter, he was charged with violation of probation for lewd and lascivious conduct with another boy at Dozier. That conduct led to a conviction. In June of 1995 Routen-berg admitted the violation of probation, and he was sentenced. At his sentencing, the judge told Routenberg that he scared her “to death” because she felt that he had a serious, untreatable sexual problem. Thus, in spite of her fear that the departure reasons might be inadequate, the trial judge sentenced Routenberg to life in prison, exceeding the scoresheet’s permitted range of twelve to seventeen years. The trial judge’s bases for departure were the character of the probation violation offense, the unscored juvenile offenses, the inability of Routenberg to be rehabilitated, his continuing threat to society, and the escalating nature of his offenses.
The trial judge correctly intuited that her reasons for departure were invalid. Routenberg is now the undeserving beneficiary of the manner in which the guidelines operate. Because none of the justifications existed at the time of the initial sentencing for the original offense, they are invalid. Williams v. State, 581 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1991); § 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). Factors relating to violation of probation cannot be used as a ground for departure. Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1989).
Accordingly, we reverse Routenberg’s sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
RYDER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goutier v. State, 692 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…tier to thirty years in prison, followed by ten years’ probation. In a split sentence such as this one, the combined number of years of incarceration and probation cannot exceed the statutory maximum. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(12); Stephens v. State, 677 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Therefore, Goutier must be resentenced on this count. Goutier also asserts that he was scored eighty victim-injury points in contravention of the dictates of Karchesky v. State, 591 So. 2d 930 (Fla.1992). The factual basis reci…
-
Landeverde v. State, 769 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…violation of probation, based on a reason that would have supported departure had the judge initially sentenced the defendant rather than plac [*464] ing him or her on probation. See Williams v. State, 581 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1991); Routenberg v. State, 677 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). These and other sentencing scenarios demonstrate that a probation or community control placement is not a “fixed” or final sentence as contemplated by Mitchell,4 So long as the trial court retains jurisdiction and control over a…
-
Routenburg v. State, 802 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…resentenced under a corrected score-sheet. Id. at 44. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur. . Routenberg's sentence on the violation of probation was twice overturned on appeal. Routenberg v. State, 677 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Routenberg v. State, 721 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). . Resolution of the Karchesky issue allows a very narrow exception to the general rule that evidentiary hearings are not permitted in addressing motions filed pursuant to…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1989)
- Williams v. State, 581 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1991)