NORMAND JOSEPH JOYAL, 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.
Joyal appeals consecutive five-year sentences imposed after revocation of probation and community control for multiple probation violations. The appellate court affirmed the sentences, finding the trial court provided adequate reasons for departing from guideline recommendations and that the sentences were not excessive.
The trial court provided adequate reasons for departure from guidelines based on Joyal's history of continuing criminal activity and disregard for the law, and the consecutive five-year sentences were not excessive as a matter of law.
[1] A trial court may depart from recommended guidelines sentences when the defendant demonstrates a total disregard for the law and has been given multiple opportunities for…
[2] A history of continuing criminal activity, including committing new offenses shortly after being placed on probation or community control, can constitute a valid reason f…
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“the judge did state convincing and valid reasons for the departure. Joyal has a history of continuing criminal activity: committing a crime shortly after having adjudication of guilt withheld on his first crime, and then committing additional crimes shortly after being placed on probation and community control for other crimes.”
Establishes that the trial court's reasons for departing from guidelines were sufficient and based on legitimate factors of ongoing criminal conduct despite multiple opportunities for reform.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoyal pled guilty to burglary of a conveyance in July 1982 and received withheld adjudication with five-year probation. In March 1984, he pled guilty …
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Joyal appeals two consecutive guidelines sentences of five years each on grounds: (1) that the trial court failed to give clear and convincing reasons for departing from the recommended guidelines range, and (2) that the sentences imposed were excessive. We affirm.
On July 23, 1982 Joyal pled guilty to a charge of burglary of a conveyance. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was placed on probation for a term of five years. On March 20, 1984, appellant pled guilty to a charge of grand theft. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to 364 days in jail to be followed by four years probation. On July 7, 1984, appellant pled guilty to charges of violating his probation in both cases. In the burglary case he was placed on community control and in the theft case his probation was continued. On January 3, 1985, Joyal was found guilty of violating both the probation and the community control. The probation and the community control were revoked and consecutive sentences of five years each were imposed.
As grounds for the departure from the recommended guidelines sentence the court stated that Joyal had shown a total disregard for the law, that he had been given many chances to straighten up his life and that he could have been sentenced as a habitual offender. Although the reasons given were not expressed in the clearest terms possible, the judge did state convincing and valid reasons for the departure. Joyal has a history of continuing criminal activity: committing a crime shortly after having adjudication of guilt withheld on his first crime, and then committing additional crimes shortly after being placed on probation and community control for other crimes. Based on this prior history and record, the trial judge could properly find that the recommended guidelines sentence would not be sufficient for rehabilitation or deterrence. Simmons v. State, 483 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Swain v. State, 455 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
This court is now authorized to consider whether a sentence which departs from the guidelines is excessive even though it is a legal sentence. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). Although the sentence is substantial, we are unable to say from a review of the record that the sentence is so excessive as to constitute reversible error. We affirm.
MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. State, 492 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…s served. . The following reasons for departure have been considered valid by this court: The recommended sentence is insufficient for retribution, rehabilitation or deterrence, Chaplin v. State, 488 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Joyal v. State, 488 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); The defendant has shown a flagrant disregard of the laws and the guidelines sentence is inadequate to deter him from further criminal activity, Simmons v. State, 483 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Defendant is an ongoing dange…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Swain v. State, 455 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Hunt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Simmons v. State, 483 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)