Forney v. State

Anthony FORNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 3, 1990.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-10-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“DOES THE TEMPORAL PROXIMITY OF CRIMES ALONE PROVIDE A VALID REASON FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES WITHOUT A FINDING OF A PERSISTENT PATTERN OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Cave v. State

Relies on 564 So. 2d 616 - Barfield v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-10-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably Bowles v. State (1994), Duggan v. Department of Corrections (1996)

28 state decisions

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 →

¶1Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lynn Waxman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4This is an appeal from a guidelines departure sentence. The recommended sentence under the guidelines was 12-17 years. The trial court departed and sentenced appellant to 24 years. The reason for departure was "The defendant was recently released from supervision."

¶5We affirm upon authority of Barfield v. State,564 So.2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As in Barfield we certify the following question to be of great public importance:

DOES THE TEMPORAL PROXIMITY OF CRIMES ALONE PROVIDE A VALID REASON FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES WITHOUT A FINDING OF A PERSISTENT PATTERN OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT?

¶6AFFIRMED.

¶7LETTS, WALDEN and WARNER, JJ., concur.