Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Re: Sentencing Guidelines

522 So. 2d 374, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 283, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 678, 1988 WL 35623
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedApril 21, 1988
Docket71600
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 522 So. 2d 374 (Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Re: Sentencing Guidelines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Re: Sentencing Guidelines, 522 So. 2d 374, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 283, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 678, 1988 WL 35623 (Fla. 1988).

Opinion

522 So.2d 374 (1988)

FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RE: SENTENCING GUIDELINES (RULES 3.701 & 3.988).

No. 71600.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 21, 1988.[*]

Leonard Holton, Director, Sentencing Guidelines Commission, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

AS MODIFIED ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

The Sentencing Guidelines Commission has petitioned this Court for changes in the sentencing guidelines rules. The first change is purely procedural. Its purpose is to:

Conform Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(c) and 3.988(a) to previously enacted statutory revisions repealing § 316.1931, Florida Statutes (1985) and transferring the statutory authority for the offense of DUI Manslaughter to § 316.193(3)(c)3, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). The existing statutory reference in Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(c) and 3.988(a) is to § 316.1931(2) and should be changed to § 316.193(3)(c)3.
The Florida Legislature in 1987 provided the Supreme Court with the authority to revise the statewide sentencing guidelines where the Supreme Court certifies that the revisions are necessary to conform the guidelines to previously adopted statutory revisions. Ch. 87-110, § 2, Laws of Florida. This revision is intended to correct the erroneous references in the existing sections of the sentencing guidelines as set out above.

The second change is to:

*375 Adopt a revision to expand the discretion of the sentencing courts where the recommended range of punishment is the second or a higher cell. This revision would provide a sentencing court with the ability to increase or decrease the severity of a recommended sentence by one cell without requiring the sentencing court to provide written reasons or allowing for appellate review of the one cell increase or decrease. The proposal is referred to as "permitted ranges" and is the same proposal authored by the Florida Supreme Court in response to a recommendation of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission contained in the petition filed on October 1, 1986. See, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure re Sentencing Guidelines (Rule 3.701; 3.988), 509 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 1987). The existing structure of cells of recommended ranges of punishment would be retained and the sentencing court would not be allowed, under this proposal, to increase the severity of a recommended sentence of the first cell without providing clear and convincing reasons in writing, subject to appellate review.

We approve this petition and recommend that the legislature approve these changes. One of the chief complaints about the guidelines is that in many instances the sentencing cells are too narrow for the circumstances of certain crimes. This modification would afford an opportunity to adjust sentences outside of the norm for the particular category. Nevertheless, it is contemplated that the use of the "permitted" range would be the exception rather than the rule and that most sentences will remain in the recommended cell. The expanded cells should result in fewer true departure sentences and hence fewer appeals. The amendments are attached to this opinion.

We should advise that there is a difference of opinion on whether this amendment would result in more prison days in the state penitentiary than exist under present guidelines. We have no reason to believe that it will.

In chapter 87-110, Laws of Florida, the legislature changed the standard for evaluating the sufficiency of reasons for departure from recommended ranges. The original version of this opinion, however, inadvertently overlooked that recent amendment to section 921.001, Florida Statutes (1987). On the commission's motion for clarification, therefore, we amend Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701b.6, d.8, and d.11. to remove reference to "clear and convincing" reasons.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

BARKETT, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

RULE 3.701. SENTENCING GUIDELINES

a. This rule is to be used in conjunction with forms 3.988(a)-(i).

b. Statement of Purpose

The purpose of sentencing guidelines is to establish a uniform set of standards to guide the sentencing judge in the sentence decision-making process. The guidelines represent a synthesis of current sentencing theory and historic sentencing practices throughout the state. Sentencing guidelines are intended to eliminate unwarranted variation in the sentencing process by reducing the subjectivity in interpreting specific offense-related and offender-related criteria and in defining their relative importance in the sentencing decision.

The sentencing guidelines embody the following principles:

1. Sentencing should be neutral with respect to race, gender, and social and economic status.
2. The primary purpose of sentencing is to punish the offender. Rehabilitation and other traditional considerations continue to be desired goals of the criminal justice system but must assume a subordinate role.
3. The penalty imposed should be commensurate with the severity of the convicted *376 offense and the circumstances surrounding the offense.
4. The severity of the sanction should increase with the length and nature of the offender's criminal history.
5. The sentence imposed by the sentencing judge should reflect the length of time to be served, shortened only by the application of gain time.
6. While the sentencing guidelines are designed to aid the judge in the sentencing decision and are not intended to usurp judicial discretion, departures from the presumptive sentences established in the guidelines shall be articulated in writing and made only for clear and convincing reasons where circumstances or factors reasonably justify the aggravation or mitigation of the sentence. The level of proof necessary to establish facts supporting a departure from a sentence under the guidelines is a preponderance of the evidence.
7. Because the capacities of state and local correctional facilities are finite, use of incarcerative sanctions should be limited to those persons convicted of more serious offenses or those who have longer criminal histories. To ensure such usage of finite resources, sanctions used in sentencing convicted felons should be the least restrictive necessary to achieve the purposes of the sentence.

c. Offense Categories

Offenses have been grouped into nine (9) offense categories encompassing the following statutes:

Category 1: Murder, manslaughter: Chapter 782 [except subsection 782.04(1)(a)], and subsection 316.193(3)(c) 3, and section 327.351(2)
Category 2: Sexual offenses: Chapters 794 and 800 and section 826.04
Category 3: Robbery: Section 812.13
Category 4: Violent personal crimes: Chapters 784 and 836 and section 843.01
Category 5: Burglary: Chapter 810 and subsection 806.13(3)
Category 6: Thefts, forgery, fraud: Chapters 322, 409, 443, 509, 812 (except section 812.13), 815, 817, 831, and 832
Category 7: Drugs: Chapter 893
Category 8: Weapons: Chapter 790 and section 944.40
Category 9: All other felony offenses

d. General Rules and Definitions

1.

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

Related

Kenneth Lee Manhard v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Huffman v. State
192 So. 3d 687 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
State v. Anderson
905 So. 2d 111 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2005)
Ash v. State
790 So. 2d 1130 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Hodges v. State
765 So. 2d 887 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Cabal v. State
678 So. 2d 315 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)
Simmons v. State
668 So. 2d 654 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Gordon v. State
649 So. 2d 326 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Chanquet v. State
646 So. 2d 834 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Wray v. State
639 So. 2d 621 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Hernandez v. State
632 So. 2d 246 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
State v. Traster
610 So. 2d 572 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Stinson v. State
590 So. 2d 31 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Fretwell v. State
586 So. 2d 483 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Puffinberger v. State
581 So. 2d 897 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Furlow v. State
579 So. 2d 910 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Nodel v. State
579 So. 2d 768 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Hicks v. State
577 So. 2d 712 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Irizarry v. State
578 So. 2d 711 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
State v. Johns
576 So. 2d 1332 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
522 So. 2d 374, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 283, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 678, 1988 WL 35623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-rules-of-criminal-procedure-re-sentencing-guidelines-fla-1988.