LISA CONNELLY, 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.
Lisa Connelly was convicted by jury of second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but reversed the trial judge's upward departure sentences, finding that the grounds cited—violation of trust, cover-up efforts, and co-defendants' brutality—were insufficient under Florida sentencing guidelines to justify departure from the presumptive sentence.
The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the departure sentences and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. The court found that violation of trust, cover-up efforts, and excessive brutality by co-defendants were not valid grounds for upward departure under Florida sentencing law.
[1] A defendant's efforts to cover up a crime do not justify a departure from sentencing guidelines.
[2] Excessive brutality of co-defendants cannot be imputed to a defendant to justify an upward departure from sentencing guidelines unless the egregious nature of the crime a…
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“If one of the grounds for departure from the guidelines is sufficient to support the upward departure, then we must affirm.”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of sentencing departures.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConnelly was convicted of second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the second degree. The victim, Bobby Kent, was lured to the scene by…
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 Law Of Principals cases and more on FLexlaw
COSTELLO, DEDEE S., Associate Judge.
Appellant, Lisa Connelly, was tried by jury and convicted of second degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the second degree. We affirm the conviction, but reverse the departure sentences. We find error in the upward departure sentence imposed by the trial judge and reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
The trial judge prepared a detailed sentencing order delineating the underlying facts of this case and the reasons for the upward departure from the presumptive sentencing guidelines sentence. If one of the grounds for departure from the guidelines is sufficient to support the upward departure, then we must affirm. See § 921.001(6), Fla. Stat. (1993).
First, the trial court found violation of trust as a clear and convincing reason to justify an upward departure. In Davis v. State, 517 So. 2d 670, 674 (Fla.1987), the Florida Supreme Court found that if there was no particular trust that the victim bestowed on the defendant that formed the foundation for the crime, the crime was not directly related to that trust. There was no betrayed trust relationship between Appellant and the victim, Bobby Kent. Kent was lured to the scene of his death by Alice Willis, one of Appellant’s co-defendants.
Second, the trial court found that Appellant’s efforts to cover up the commission of the murder justified departure. However, a defendant’s efforts to cover up a crime will not justify a departure from the sentencing guidelines. See Smith v. State, 620 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1993).
Third, the trial court found that the excessive brutality of the crime justified departure. The main question here is whether the excessive brutality of the co-defendants can be imputed to Appellant. We cannot find that the acts of a co-defendant justify the enhancement of the presumptive sentence unless the egregious nature of the crime and the excessive brutality “were caused by or at the behest of [Appellant].” See Waychoff v. State, 624 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Had Appellant procured the actions of the co-defendants, and had she suggested that they act with brutality beyond the norm, then there might be justification for the upward departure. Here, Appellant was passive, made no physical attack upon the victim, and did not direct the manner by which he was killed.
The philosophy behind the sentencing guidelines requires individualized consideration. The guidelines consider the offense and the prior record of each defendant and allow limited circumstances for the trial judge to deviate from those guidelines. Although it is clear that under the law of principals, the actions of one co-defendant may be used for a conviction, the excessive brutality committed by co-defendants and the violation of the victim’s trust are not grounds to deviate from the sentencing guidelines.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, but reverse the departure sentences and remand for sentencing within the guidelines.
DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 908 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…We also note that the similar inchoate crimes of conspiracy to commit second degree murder and attempt to commit second degree murder are crimes under Florida law. Willis v. State, 700 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (conspiracy); Connelly v. State, 704 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (conspiracy); Powlowski v. State, 467 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (conspiracy); Brown v. State, 790 So. 2d 389 (Fla.2000) (attempt). . Even if the issue of relevancy had been preserved by an objection in the trial court, it w…
-
Wilson v. State, 734 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ceal the victim’s body in a particularly gruesome method. The State concedes that the second departure reason was invalid. “[A] defendant’s efforts to cover up a crime will not justify a departure from the sentencing guidelines.” Connelly v. State, 704 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). See Smith v. State, 620 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1993). We note that section 921.0016(3)(o), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that a departure sentence may be appropriate where the crime was committed to prevent or avoid arrest, t…
-
Calixte v. State, 770 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…point is not preserved for appeal. Defense counsel’s only objection was a general one that the state needed to offer proof of the prior conviction. The remaining grounds raised are insufficient to support a departure sentence. See Connelly v. State, 704 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(actions of a co-defendant could not be imputed to defendant for purposes of a finding of excessive brutality as grounds for departure); State v. Sachs, 526 So. 2d 48, 51 n. 1 (Fla.1988)(upward departure cannot be based on co-defe…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 517 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1987)
- Smith v. State, 620 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1993)
- Waychoff v. State, 624 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)