Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

473 So. 2d 800

473 So.2d 800

10 Fla.L.Weekly 1900

Docket No. 85-30.

Keys v. State

Johnny Lee KEYS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-08-08

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1991

10 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“escalating course of violent criminal conduct indicating that he is unsuitable for probation or community control”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 492 So. 2d 741 - Pittman v. State

Relies on 475 So. 2d 1218 - Hendrix v. State · 455 So. 2d 449 - Hendrix v. State · 456 So. 2d 1245 - Burke v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-08-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*801 James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Asst. Public Defender, Chief, Appellate Div., and Kenneth Witts, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

¶3FRANK D. UPCHURCH, JR., Judge.

¶4Keys appeals his convictions and sentences for sexual battery, robbery, and aggravated battery. We find that the reasons set out by the trial judge — Keys' violation of probation, his escalating course of violent criminal conduct indicating that he is unsuitable for probation or community control and the facts and circumstances relating to the present offenses — provide clear and convincing reasons supporting departure from the guidelines. See, e.g., Deer v. State,462 So.2d 96 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), review granted, Supreme Court No. 66,532; Murphy v. State,459 So.2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Hankey v. State,458 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review granted, Supreme Court No. 66,320; Burke v. State,456 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review granted, Supreme Court No. 66,091; Hendrix v. State,455 So.2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review granted,475 So.2d 1218, Supreme Court No. 65,928. Any reference by the trial judge to impermissible reasons for departure from the guidelines does not vitiate these valid reasons. Ragan v. State,468 So.2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Albritton v. State,458 So.2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review granted, Supreme Court No. 66,169. However, we do agree with Keys' contention that the trial judge erred in retaining jurisdiction over his sentences. See Ragan v. State; Emory v. State,463 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we strike the retention of jurisdiction provisions of the sentences, but affirm the judgments and sentences in all other respects.

¶5COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

/473/so2d/800 · .json · Public domain