FREDERICK ALEX DUMAS, A/K/A FRED DUMAS, 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 held that departure sentences based on excessive physical trauma were improper when the defendant did not personally inflict the trauma.
The appellant was convicted of aiding and abetting a robbery where a codefendant shot the victim. The trial court departed from sentencing guidelines …
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 Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for attempted first degree murder with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. We affirm the convictions but reverse the departure sentences and remand for resentencing within the sentencing guidelines.
The appellant was charged with aiding and abetting two codefendants, Blount and Robinson, in a convenience store robbery by supplying the gun and driving the getaway car. Blount and Robinson entered the convenience store, but the appellant did not. During the robbery, the appellant’s codefendant Robinson shot the victim.
The trial court found excessive physical trauma pursuant to section 921.001(7), Florida Statutes (1989), and departed from the guidelines on that basis, stating its reasons in writing. Our disposition on this point is governed by our opinion in the appeal of the appellant’s codefendant Blount. Blount v. State, 581 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In Blount this court found that the specific and unambiguous lan guage of section 921.001(7) limits its application to circumstances in which the defendant himself personally inflicted the trauma. Since it was Robinson and not Blount who shot the victim, we held in Blount that Blount’s departure sentence under section 921.001(7) was improper. The appellant is in the same position as Blount and the appellant’s departure sentences under the statute are also improper. Reversed and remanded for resentencing within the sentencing guidelines.
THREADGILL, J., and CASE, JAMES R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waychoff v. State, 624 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, there is insufficient evidence to support that the egregious nature and the excessive brutality of the beatings were caused by or at the behest of Ms. Waychoff. See Dumas v. State, 592 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Blount v. State, 581 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Marshall v. State, 600 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (departure based upon extraordinary or egregious harm reversed where another perpetrator struck the victim, not the…
Authorities Cited
- Blount v. State, 581 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)