Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

514 So. 2d 370

514 So.2d 370

12 Fla.L.Weekly 2416

Maulden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1987-08-05

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1989

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the first, the emotional and psychological trauma to the victim”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Maulden v. State

Relies on 476 So. 2d 158 - Albritton v. State · 498 So. 2d 863 - Whitehead v. State · 509 So. 2d 1104 - Griffis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-08-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1AFFIRMED.

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

¶2ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

¶3Appellant’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 Albrittonand Whitehead, and we reverse and remand for resentencing.

¶4AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

/514/so2d/370 · .json · Public domain