Griffis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Griffis v. State

541 So. 2d 647, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 395, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 647, 1989 WL 10920

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 1989

DocketNo. BJ-356

StatusPublished

This text of 541 So. 2d 647 (Griffis 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.

Bluebook

Griffis v. State, 541 So. 2d 647, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 395, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 647, 1989 WL 10920 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court on remand for reconsideration in light of Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987) (Griffis II). Upon reconsideration, we affirm the sentence.

In Griffis v. State, 497 So.2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (Griffis I), we affirmed the trial judge’s departure from the recommended guidelines sentence, in support of which he had listed eight reasons, the first three of which we found to be valid. We noted his statement that he would have imposed the same sentence if any one of the reasons were upheld as valid, and certified to the supreme court, as a matter of great public importance, the question of whether such a statement satisfies the standard set forth in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

In Griffis II, the supreme court held that a statement by the trial court that it would depart for any of the reasons given, standing alone, is not enough to satisfy the State’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would not have been affected by the absence of the impermissible reasons, and that such a sentence may be affirmed only when the appellate court is satisfied by the entire record that the State has met its burden. We do not interpret this to mean that the appellate court may not take into account such a statement by the trial court, but only that it may not rely on such a statement without considering the entire record.

The record in this case, including the trial judge’s statement, demonstrates that the same sentence would have been imposed in the absence of the impermissible reasons. The sentence is therefore AFFIRMED.

WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents with written opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court on remand for reconsideration in light of Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987) (Griffis II). Upon reconsideration, we affirm the sentence.

In Griffis v. State, 497 So.2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (Griffis I), we affirmed the trial judge’s departure from the recommended guidelines sentence, in support of which he had listed eight reasons, the first three of which we found to be valid. We noted his statement that he would have imposed the same sentence if any one of the reasons were upheld as valid, and certified to the supreme court, as a matter of great public importance, the question of whether such a statement satisfies the standard set forth in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

In Griffis II, the supreme court held that a statement by the trial court that it would depart for any of the reasons given, standing alone, is not enough to satisfy the State’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would not have been affected by the absence of the impermissible reasons, and that such a sentence may be affirmed only when the appellate court is satisfied by the entire record that the State has met its burden. We do not interpret this to mean that the appellate court may not take into account such a statement by the trial court, but only that it may not rely on such a statement without considering the entire record.

The record in this case, including the trial judge’s statement, demonstrates that the same sentence would have been imposed in the absence of the impermissible reasons. The sentence is therefore AFFIRMED.

WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents with written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 So. 2d 647, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 395, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 647, 1989 WL 10920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffis-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack