Mobley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mobley v. State

548 So. 2d 1180, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2231, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5143, 1989 WL 108480

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 1989

DocketNo. 88-01532

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 548 So. 2d 1180 (Mobley 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

Mobley v. State, 548 So. 2d 1180, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2231, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5143, 1989 WL 108480 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a departure sentence. The appellant contends that the trial judge erred when he sentenced her upon a conviction for felony petit theft giving the following as the departure reasons: similar course of conduct; at least four to six prior convictions. The appellant's contention is based upon Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985), in that the departure reasons only constitute prior record, a factor already taken into consideration on the scoresheet. The state would have this case controlled by Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987), which allowed a departure sentence based upon a pattern of criminal conduct and the time sequence of the commission of the offenses in relation to prior offenses and the defendant’s release from incarceration or supervision. Inasmuch as the departure order which we review does not show any pattern beyond that of mere repetitiveness, unlike Williams, and only restates the fact that the appellant has previous convictions, we cannot distinguish this case from Hendrix. Therefore, we affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence; we remand for resen-tencing within the recommended guidelines range. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987).

THREADGILL, A.C.J., ALTENBERND, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a departure sentence. The appellant contends that the trial judge erred when he sentenced her upon a conviction for felony petit theft giving the following as the departure reasons: similar course of conduct; at least four to six prior convictions. The appellant's contention is based upon Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985), in that the departure reasons only constitute prior record, a factor already taken into consideration on the scoresheet. The state would have this case controlled by Williams v. State, 504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987), which allowed a departure sentence based upon a pattern of criminal conduct and the time sequence of the commission of the offenses in relation to prior offenses and the defendant’s release from incarceration or supervision. Inasmuch as the departure order which we review does not show any pattern beyond that of mere repetitiveness, unlike Williams, and only restates the fact that the appellant has previous convictions, we cannot distinguish this case from Hendrix. Therefore, we affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence; we remand for resen-tencing within the recommended guidelines range. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987).

THREADGILL, A.C.J., ALTENBERND, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 So. 2d 1180, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2231, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5143, 1989 WL 108480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobley-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack