Maulden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maulden v. State

514 So. 2d 370, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2416, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9673

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1987

DocketNo. 4-86-1783

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 514 So. 2d 370 (Maulden 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

Maulden v. State, 514 So. 2d 370, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2416, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9673 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., and LUZZO, JOHN T., Associate Judge, concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. This cause is affirmed in all respects except sentencing. None of the trial court’s reasons for departure from the recommended sentencing guidelines range are valid except the first, the emotional and psychological trauma to the victim. Additionally, the recent Florida Supreme Court case of Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987), provides 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 burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same without the impermissible reasons. See Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). Furthermore, the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1985), cannot be used to extend the statutory maximum where the sentencing guidelines were im-permissibly exceeded. Hester v. State, 503 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA1987); Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863, 865 (Fla.1987). Therefore, in this case, we hold that the State has not met its burden as established in Albritton and Whitehead, and we reverse and remand for resentencing.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., and LUZZO, JOHN T., Associate Judge, concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. This cause is affirmed in all respects except sentencing. None of the trial court’s reasons for departure from the recommended sentencing guidelines range are valid except the first, the emotional and psychological trauma to the victim. Additionally, the recent Florida Supreme Court case of Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987), provides 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 burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same without the impermissible reasons. See Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). Furthermore, the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1985), cannot be used to extend the statutory maximum where the sentencing guidelines were im-permissibly exceeded. Hester v. State, 503 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA1987); Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863, 865 (Fla.1987). Therefore, in this case, we hold that the State has not met its burden as established in Albritton and Whitehead, and we reverse and remand for resentencing.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 So. 2d 370, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2416, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maulden-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack