Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

511 So. 2d 342

511 So.2d 342

12 Fla.L.Weekly 1615

Docket No. 86-1176.

Mendenhall v. State

William MENDENHALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 2, 1987.

Rehearing Denied August 20, 1987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1987-07-02

Relies on 498 So. 2d 863 - Whitehead v. State · 489 So. 2d 25 - Scurry v. State · 500 So. 2d 134 - Keys v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-07-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2016

5 state decisions

201987199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Daniel J. Schafer, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and W. Brian Bayly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

¶3COWART, Judge.

¶4This is another reversal of a sentence departing from the recommended guidelines sentence.

¶5The trial court's written reasons for departure were

1) The totality of the facts show the defendant is an on-going danger to society with no likelihood of rehabilitation. Moore v. State,483 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
2) The defendant has a pattern of drinking to excess and the defendant was drinking at the time of the offense. Scurry v. State,472 So.2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

¶6Danger to society is not a clear and convincing reason for departure in this case. Keys v. State,500 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1986); Williams v. State,492 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 1986); Vega v. State,498 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). This does not mean that danger to society can never be a clear and convincing reason for departure. In Whitehead v. State,498 So.2d 863 (Fla. 1986) the court said that although some indicia of future danger to society is included within the guidelines,

Other evidence ... which establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant poses a danger to society in the future can clearly be considered justification for a departure from the recommended sentence.

¶7498 So.2d at 865. The record, however, does not support that reason in this case.

¶8The unlikelihood of rehabilitation is not a valid reason for departure. Todd v. State,503 So.2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Williamson v. State,496 So.2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

¶9Intoxication and drug dependency are not valid reasons for departure. Barbera v. State,505 So.2d 413 (Fla. 1987). See also Scurry v. State,489 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1986) (quashing Scurry v. State,472 So.2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), which the trial court cited in its second reason for departure in this case); Vance v. State,475 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

¶10The departure sentence is vacated and the cause remanded with directions that a sentence be imposed within the recommended guidelines sentence.

¶11*343 SENTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

¶12DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

/511/so2d/342 · .json · Public domain