From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hankey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Nov 20, 1984
458 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

Nos. 84-162, 84-203.

October 18, 1984. Rehearing Denied November 20, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County, Robert R. Perry, J.,

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and David A. Henson, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


This is an appeal from a sentence wherein the trial court departed from the sentencing guidelines. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701.

There was no error in departing from the suggested guideline sentence, because of the articulated reason that the crime imposed a severe and long lasting economic and emotional hardship on the victim. The trial court found that the emotional trauma to the victim was as severe as if inflicted with "fists or sticks or guns or knives," and we find this to be a clear and convincing reason for departure. Therefore, no abuse of the judge's sentencing discretion has been demonstrated. Higgs v. State, 455 So.2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). See also, Green v. State, 455 So.2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Appellant contends also that "even if the court's reasons for departure would legitimately support some guideline departure . . . those reasons hardly justify its `leap' of six (6) guideline categories, i.e., from `any non-state prison sanction' to ten (10) years imprisonment without parole." Appellant entered a negotiated plea in consolidated cases to one count of burglary of a dwelling, a second degree felony under section 810.02(3), Florida Statutes (1983) and one count of burglary of a structure, a third degree felony under the same statute. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of five years on each count.

The sentences are within the limits imposed by statute for the respective crimes, Section 775.082(3)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1983), and are therefore proper. Once clear and convincing reasons exist which cause the sentencing court to depart from the guidelines, the court may impose any sentence otherwise authorized by law. Section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes (1983).

AFFIRMED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs.

SHARP, J., concurs in result only.


Summaries of

Hankey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Nov 20, 1984
458 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Hankey v. State

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS HANKEY, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Nov 20, 1984

Citations

458 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Moore v. State

7 L.Ed.2d 303 (1983); and (2) the defendant's claim that his trial on the robbery charge should have been…

Miller v. State

AFFIRMED. See Hankey v. State, 458 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Green v. State, 455 So.2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA…