Perrot v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perrot v. State

712 So. 2d 797, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7554, 1998 WL 336512

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 1998

DocketNo. 96-04601

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 712 So. 2d 797 (Perrot 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

Perrot v. State, 712 So. 2d 797, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7554, 1998 WL 336512 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

The appellant, Gary Perrot, presents two evidentiary issues and one sentencing issue in this appeal. First, he challenges as inadmissible hearsay Linda Sheppard’s testimony regarding what the victim told her immediately after the sexual battery; second, Mr. Perrot contends the trial court erred in admitting similar fact evidence; and third, he asserts that imposing a consecutive life sentence on Count V was improper. Upon examination of the trial record, we find no merit in Mr. Perrot’s contentions regarding his convictions and affirm. We find his third contention has merit.

The jury found Mr. Perrot committed four sexual batteries as charged in the information. The trial court imposed concurrent life sentences for three of the four sexual battery convictions but a consecutive life sentence on the fourth. The sexual batteries charged in the information and proven at trial occurred in a single criminal episode. The guidelines sentencing range was 38.5 years to a discretionary life sentence.

Under these circumstances, the consecutive life sentence constitutes an upward departure sentence, and in the absence of written reasons to support the departure, it is improper. On resentencing, should the trial court impose a departure sentence, valid reasons must be set forth. See Garcia v. State, 632 So.2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

We affirm Mr. Perrot’s convictions and sentences except for the sentence on Count V, which we reverse. We remand for resen-tencing.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.

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

CASANUEVA, Judge.

The appellant, Gary Perrot, presents two evidentiary issues and one sentencing issue in this appeal. First, he challenges as inadmissible hearsay Linda Sheppard’s testimony regarding what the victim told her immediately after the sexual battery; second, Mr. Perrot contends the trial court erred in admitting similar fact evidence; and third, he asserts that imposing a consecutive life sentence on Count V was improper. Upon examination of the trial record, we find no merit in Mr. Perrot’s contentions regarding his convictions and affirm. We find his third contention has merit.

The jury found Mr. Perrot committed four sexual batteries as charged in the information. The trial court imposed concurrent life sentences for three of the four sexual battery convictions but a consecutive life sentence on the fourth. The sexual batteries charged in the information and proven at trial occurred in a single criminal episode. The guidelines sentencing range was 38.5 years to a discretionary life sentence.

Under these circumstances, the consecutive life sentence constitutes an upward departure sentence, and in the absence of written reasons to support the departure, it is improper. On resentencing, should the trial court impose a departure sentence, valid reasons must be set forth. See Garcia v. State, 632 So.2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

We affirm Mr. Perrot’s convictions and sentences except for the sentence on Count V, which we reverse. We remand for resen-tencing.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 797, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7554, 1998 WL 336512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrot-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack