ANTHONY E. TOWE, 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.
Anthony Towe appealed his departure sentence of eight years imprisonment for burglary convictions, challenging the trial court's use of a crime spree as justification for exceeding the three-year guideline sentence. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the crime spree rationale was invalid under controlling Florida precedent.
The trial court erred in using a crime spree as justification for a departure sentence. The decision was reversed and the case was remanded for resentencing within the recommended sentencing guideline range.
[1] A crime spree is an invalid reason for imposing a departure sentence when prior case law has established it as such.
[2] A departure sentence imposed for an invalid reason must be vacated and remanded for sentencing within the recommended guideline range.
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 departed from the guidelines and sentenced defendant to a minimum of eight years imprisonment. The court stated as its reason for imposing a departure sentence the fact that defendant had engaged in a crime spree”
Establishes the basis for the departure sentence that the defendant challenged.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Towe was charged with sixteen counts including twelve counts of burglary of a structure, eleven counts of grand theft, six counts of petit t…
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 Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Judge.
Defendant, Anthony Towe, has taken this appeal from the departure sentence imposed by the trial court after defendant pleaded guilty to twelve counts of burglary of a structure and two counts of burglary of a dwelling.
Sixteen informations were filed against defendant charging him with twelve counts of burglary-of a structure,1 eleven counts of grand theft,2 six counts of petit theft,3 one count of possession of a firearm in commission of a felony,4 one count of armed burglary of a dwelling,5 and one count of criminal mischief.6 Pursuant to a negotiated plea arrangement defendant entered a plea of guilty to fourteen charges of burglary and, in exchange, the state entered a nolle prosequi as to the remaining charges. The recommended guidelines sentence was three years imprisonment, however, the trial court departed from the guidelines and sentenced defendant to a minimum of eight years imprisonment. The court stated as its reason for imposing a departure sentence the fact that defendant had engaged in a crime spree, that is, defendant had committed nine of the fourteen burglaries between October 16, 1987 and October 25, 1987.
On appeal defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to use as its reason for imposing a departure sentence the fact that defendant had engaged in a crime spree, asserting that under the rulings set forth in State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1987) and Mathis v. State, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1987) this reason was clearly invalid. The state properly concedes that Rousseau is controlling and that reversal is required.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court which imposed sentence upon defendant must be vacated and this matter remanded for sentencing within the recommended sentencing guideline range. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur. . § 810.02(1), Fla.Stat. (1987).
. § 812.014(2), Fla.Stat. (1987).
. § 812.014(2)(d), Fla.Stat. (1987).
. § 790.07, Fla.Stat. (1987).
. § 810.02(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1987).
. § 806.13, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chambliss v. State, 562 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…r departure, that defendant’s crimes constituted a “crime wave,” is invalid. We agree. See State v. Simpson, 554 So. 2d 506 (Fla.1989); Mathis v. State, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1987); State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1987). See also Towe v. State, 536 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Morgan v. State, 528 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Hayes v. State, 516 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, defendant’s sentence is vacated and this matter is remanded for sentencing within the recommended sentencing gu…
Authorities Cited
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1987)
- Mathis v. State, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1987)
- Bondurant v. Nickolas P. Geeker, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1987)