RODRIGUEZ GORDON, 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 17-year-old appellant appealed his adult criminal sanctions and departure sentence for attempted rape of an 11-year-old girl. The court affirmed the imposition of adult sanctions but vacated the departure sentence because the reasons given for exceeding the guidelines range were legally insufficient.
The court affirmed the imposition of adult criminal sanctions but vacated the departure sentence because all five stated reasons for departure were legally insufficient under Florida law, and the incarceration period of 7 years exceeded the permissible guidelines range of up to 5.5 years.
[1] A departure sentence is invalid if based on a statute that requires specific charges and proof which were not met.
[2] Lack of remorse is an invalid reason for a departure sentence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We affirm the trial court's imposition of adult criminal sanctions, but vacate the departure sentence.”
The court's holding on the two main issues presented in the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodriguez Gordon, age 17, pleaded guilty to attempted rape of an 11-year-old girl. During the attempt, two other boys (ages 11 and 13, one being appel…
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 Attempted Rape cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
This 17-year-old appellant, Rodriguez Gordon, complains that he should not have received adult sanctions and a departure sentence after entering a plea of guilty to the attempted rape of an 11-year-old girl. The attempt was made while two other boys, ages eleven and thirteen, one of whom was appellant’s brother, forcibly held the victim on the ground pursuant to the appellant’s orders. We affirm the trial court’s imposition of adult criminal sanctions, but vacate the departure sentence.
Gordon’s guidelines score sheet authorizes a recommended range of 3V2 to 4½ years incarceration or a permitted range of up to 5½ years. The trial court imposed a sentence of 7 years incarceration followed by 5 years probation. The court stated as its reasons for departure:
(1) Section 794.023, Florida Statutes (1991), authorizes enhancement for acts of sexual battery committed by more than one person.
(2) Gordon “expressed an utter lack of remorse....”
(3) Gordon had completely dominated the victim and the two younger juvenile perpetrators.
(4) Gordon’s prospects for rehabilitation were poor. (5) Society should be protected from Gordon’s propensity to commit future criminal acts.
While the period of probation following incarceration is allowable, the period of incarceration in excess of 5V2 years is not, because the reasons for departure are invalid. Reason number one is invalid since section 794.023 allows enhanced penalties if the state charges and proves that more than one person committed the act of sexual battery on the same victim. We need not explore whether an attempt to commit sexual battery is contemplated by the statute since the failure to charge Gordon under section 794.023 invalidates this reason for departure.
Gordon’s lack of remorse is invalid as a departure reason under Vance v. State, 475 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The domination of the two younger boys cannot support departure since Gordon could have been charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Since such behavior could have been charged and, if proven, could have increased the score sheet points, such behavior cannot be used to justify a departure sentence. See State v. Tyner, 506 So. 2d 405 (Fla.1987); Stroud v. State, 576 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The departure reasons that Gordon is a poor prospect for rehabilitation and that society needs protection have also been ruled to be insufficient. Mendenhall v. State, 511 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Odom v. State, 561 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
The sentence is vacated, and we remand for resentencing in accordance with the recommended or permitted range of the score sheet. Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirby Lee Casselman v. State, 761 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…by law enforcement and to escape from being stopped and detained by them.” Casselman argues that the departure reasons are invalid because they are inherent in all of the offences charged. Smith v. State, 620 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1993); Gordon v. State, 599 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). However, the sentencing guidelines which became effective on January 1, 1994 changed the law and allow a court to enhance based on an element of the offense. Capers v. State, 678 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1996). The problem in this case…
-
Mauricio Velasquez v. State, 657 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…another man held the victim by his hands and took turns trying to rape him. Had Velasquez been convicted of sexual battery, section 794.023 would have been applicable to elevate the second degree felony to a first degree felony. See Gordon v. State, 599 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). However, a close reading of section 794.023 shows that it fails to address attempted sexual battery, and the enhancement provisions relate only to second degree felonies and first degree felonies. The crime for which Velasquez…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Tyner, 506 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1987)
- Vance v. State, 475 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Mendenhall v. State, 511 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Odom v. State, 561 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Stroud v. State, 576 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)