Floyd v. State
This text of 495 So. 2d 872 (Floyd v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Floyd appeals his concurrent ten and five year sentences imposed for two burglaries because they are a seven-cell “departure” from the presumptive sentence range of any non-state prison sanction under the guidelines.1 This is the second time the trial judge has imposed these same sentences. On March 5, 1986, we granted the state’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction for the trial court to reconsider its reasons for departure. The reason the trial judge gave for adhering to the sentences following our remand is that Floyd’s criminal record indicates his criminal behavior is escalating as to the frequency and seriousness of the offenses.
The record shows that since 1980 Floyd has committed more crimes than in the five years prior to that date, and they have progressed from misdemeanors and petit theft to burglaries and aggravated assault. [873]*873Further, Floyd served time in the Department of Corrections and county jail, which apparently had no deterring effect on his behavior. The presumptive sentence was any nonstate prison sanction.
We affirm the departure sentences as validly based on Floyd’s escalating pattern of criminal behavior
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
495 So. 2d 872, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2143, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.