Davis v. State

700 So. 2d 130, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11212, 1997 WL 614301
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 8, 1997·No. No. 95-1832·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of escape, false imprisonment, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, as a result of attempting to escape from prison in May, 1994. He contends that the trial court erroneously based an upward departure sentence for escape on [131]*131section 921.0016(3)(o), Florida Statutes (1993), which authorizes departure for an offense committed in an attempt to escape from custody.

Appellant argues, in regard to his sentence for escape, that because the ground for departure was an element of the crime itself, it cannot be used for departure. Although that was the law, see State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986), the sentencing guidelines applicable to offenses committed after January 1,1994 changed that law. In Capers v. State, 678 So.2d 330 (Fla.1996), the Florida Supreme Court held that the new sentencing guidelines authorize departure based on a factor which is an inherent element of the crime, unless the guidelines specifically prohibit departure for that factor where it is an inherent element. Capers, 678 So.2d at 333. Because the guidelines do not specifically prohibit departure for escape, the trial court did not err in departing on that basis.1

We find the other issues raised by appellant do not merit discussion and affirm.

GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Davis v. State, 700 So. 2d 130, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11212, 1997 WL 614301 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

700 So. 2d 130 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Valdriche v. State
807 So. 2d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Casselman v. State
761 So. 2d 482 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)