Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

DENNIS EDWARD MAULDEN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellant'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 impermissibly exceeded. Hester v. State, 503 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); 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 Albritton and Whitehead, and we reverse and remand for resentencing.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MAULDEN v. STATE
(Oct 14, 1987)