THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHEN SALONY, 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.
Florida appeals a downward departure from mandatory sentencing guidelines based on the defendant's chronic drug abuse problem. The court affirms the departure, holding that a trial court may depart downward from guideline sentences when the defendant's substance abuse directly caused the crimes committed.
A trial court may impose a downward departure from recommended guideline sentences when it finds the defendant suffers from an obvious and chronic drug abuse problem that caused him to commit both the current crimes and prior crimes considered in the sentencing scoresheet.
[1] A court may consider a defendant's chronic substance abuse problem when determining a sentence.
[2] A defendant's prior criminal history, including previous probation and guilty pleas, is relevant to sentencing.
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 trial court's finding that the defendant suffers from an obvious and chronic drug abuse problem which caused him to commit the crimes for which he was being sentenced and past crimes which were calculated into his sentencing scoresheet is a sufficient reason to justify a downward departure from a recommended sentence.”
Establishes the holding that substance abuse can justify downward sentencing departures when causally connected to the crimes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStephen Salony pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery with a weapon. He had previously been convicted of robbery in 1986 while on probation. The tr…
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 Robbery With A Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
. In the present case the trial court’s detailed, albeit single-theme, order recited in pertinent part:
"1. The Court finds after carefully considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s arrest and subsequent pleas of guilty to three (3) separate informa-tions charging him with robbery with a weapon that the Defendant has an obvious and chronic substance abuse problem.
"2. The Defendant had previously been placed on probation by this Court on November 12, 1986, pursuant to pleas of guilty to the offense of robbery. This Defendant previously plead [sic] guilty in case numbers 86-23956 and 86-23957 to the robbery of a Farm Store convenience store. After careful review of the facts and circumstances surrounding those arrests and after carefully reviewing the facts and circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s arrest in the 1987 cases, where the Defendant is charged with robbing Farm Stores convenience stores, implying he had a firearm, it is apparent, that the Defendant is carrying out those acts to support a chronic substance abuse problem.
“3. [T]his Defendant was evaluated pursuant to his request under F.R.C.P. 3.216(a) by Doctors Mary Haber, Michael Rappaport and David Rothenberg. All three of these doctors, have indicated that he has an obvious and chronic substance abuse problem and but for the desire to satisfy his need, would not have carried out these acts.
"4. The Court further finds that the sentencing guidelines which call for a sentencing range of twelve (12) to seventeen (17) years is a bit extreme in light of the Defendant’s severe drug abuse history.’’
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herrin v. State, 568 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1990)…is a valid reason for downward departures from the sentencing guidelines. State v. Winter, 549 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); State v. Joseph, 543 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); State v. Bledsoe, 538 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Salony, 528 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1355 (Fla.1988); State v. Whitten, 524 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); State v. Francis, 524 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); State v. Wilson, 523 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). At the outset, we are…
-
State v. Bledsoe, 538 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…she has a drug problem.” The state now appeals. We disagree with the state’s contention that drug dependency is not a valid reason for downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1987); State v. Salony, 528 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1355 (Fla.1988); State v. Whitten, 524 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); State v. Wilson, 523 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). However, as the state contends, and the defendant concedes, the trial court erred…
-
State v. Joseph, 543 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). However, the record must support the conclusion that the appellee has a drug addiction before that may be considered a valid reason for departure. State v. Francis, 524 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In State v. Salony, 528 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the court found that the record supported the conclusion that the defendant had a drug addiction based on past crimes for which he was convicted and the crime for which he was being sentenced. We are not prepared to say whether…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1985)
- Young v. State, 455 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- State v. Mesa, 520 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Vance v. State, 475 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- State v. Thomas, 516 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- State v. Daughtry, 505 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Aleta Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 523 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Wilson, 523 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)