GARY PERROT, 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 appellant's convictions and sentences for sexual battery, but reversed the consecutive life sentence on one count due to improper upward departure.
The appellant was convicted of four sexual batteries occurring in a single criminal episode. The trial court imposed concurrent life sentences for thr…
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 Upward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
The appellant, Gary Perrot, presents two evidentiary issues and one sentencing issue in this appeal. First, he challenges as inadmissible hearsay Linda Sheppard’s testimony regarding what the victim told her immediately after the sexual battery; second, Mr. Perrot contends the trial court erred in admitting similar fact evidence; and third, he asserts that imposing a consecutive life sentence on Count V was improper. Upon examination of the trial record, we find no merit in Mr. Perrot’s contentions regarding his convictions and affirm. We find his third contention has merit.
The jury found Mr. Perrot committed four sexual batteries as charged in the information. The trial court imposed concurrent life sentences for three of the four sexual battery convictions but a consecutive life sentence on the fourth. The sexual batteries charged in the information and proven at trial occurred in a single criminal episode. The guidelines sentencing range was 38.5 years to a discretionary life sentence.
Under these circumstances, the consecutive life sentence constitutes an upward departure sentence, and in the absence of written reasons to support the departure, it is improper. On resentencing, should the trial court impose a departure sentence, valid reasons must be set forth. See Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
We affirm Mr. Perrot’s convictions and sentences except for the sentence on Count V, which we reverse. We remand for resentencing.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 780 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…weapon is not fired. In the instant case, while there were multiple victims, appellant never fired his weapon. The consecutive life sentences imposed are a departure from the guidelines for which no departure reasons were given. See Perrot v. State, 712 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because it does not appear, however, that the trial court was aware that it was imposing a departure sentence, the trial court shall be given the opportunity to impose a departu…
Authorities Cited
- Garcia v. State, 632 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)