ALPHONZA DORITY, 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.
A trial court's reason for departure from sentencing guidelines cannot be based on premeditation, as this is an element of the offense.
Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. The trial court departed from the sentencing guidelines, imposing a longer sentence based on the premed…
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 Sentencing Guidelines Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
The state charged defendant Alphonza Dority with aggravated battery. A jury found him guilty of this offense. Defendant’s guidelines’ scoresheet recommended a sentence of three and one-half to four and one-half years. The trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to seven years in prison. The court’s written reason for departure was that “defendant deliberately with premeditation and without provocation shot the victim in the forehead at close range with a handgun while victim was seated in a public bar evidencing an intent to kill the victim.”
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court’s reason for departure was improper. We agree. Premeditation is not a proper reason for deviation from the sentencing guidelines. Brown v. State, 483 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
We find no merit to defendant’s other contention.
Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery. We reverse his sentence for that offense and remand for resentencing within the presumptive guidelines sentence.
LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edwards v. State, 532 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…tion is REVERSED. JOANOS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. . Appellant’s fingerprints were not found on the plastic bag. The officer had apparently ruined any prints when he picked up the bag and put it in his back pocket. . See also Williams v. State, 489 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., State v. Williams, 500 So. 2d 546 (Fla.1986); Rita v. State, 470 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., State v. Rita, 480 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1985); Johnson v. State, 456 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). . The court ruled the…
-
Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…l for a period of time. Similarly, in the instant case the conviction must be reversed. . McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972, 976 and notes 12 and 13 (Fla.1977); M.W.W. v. State, 389 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). . See, e.g., Williams v. State, 489 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).…
-
Stemm v. State, 523 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…le appellant was taking a shower. Appellant points to the settled rule that the State must prove the defendant has guilty knowledge of the presence of contraband in order to be culpable in constructively possessing the contraband. Williams v. State, 489 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Kresbach v. State, 462 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Since the State did not rebut appellant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence, appellant urges that this Court must reverse and direct that he be discharged, citing Fowler v.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Buchanan v. State, 483 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)