character analysis in Florida

1990The judge's oral reasons for departure seem sufficient under State v. Pentaude, 500 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1987): The trial judge has discretion to so depart based upon the character of the violation, the number of conditions violated, the number of times he has been placed on probation, the length of time he has been on probation before violating the terms and conditions, and any other factor material or relevant to the defendant's character.

1987Although State v. Pentaude, 500 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1987), allows departure based upon the number of conditions violated, the character of the violation, and other factors concerning the probation violations not taken into account by the guidelines, it is clear that the court did not consider any other factor except those listed which do not fall into a permissible category under Pentaude .

2025Id.

2010“Testimony concerning the events which resulted in the conviction assists the jury in evaluating the character of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime so that the jury can make an informed recommendation as to the appropriate sentence.” Rhodes, 547 So.2d at 1204 ; see also Singleton v. State, 783 So.2d 970, 978 (Fla.2001) (quoting Rhodes); Elledge v. State, 346 So.2d 998, 1001 (Fla.1977) (“This is so because we believe the purpose for considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances is to engage in a character analysis of the defendant to ascertain whether the ultimate penalty

2007"The purpose for this rule is to engage in a character analysis to determine whether the death penalty is appropriate." Carpenter, 785 So.2d at 1208 .

2007While it is also true that these descriptions may not become the "feature" of the penalty phase, see id., the record reflects that this did not occur in Grim's case.

2007The legality vel non of a decision, Horton adds, is not a valid consideration under the supreme court's analysis in Snyder , arguing that other courts have held that the quasi-judicial character of a local government's decision does not change merely because the decision is contrary to a statute or city ordinance, citing in support of this argument: Grace v. Town of Palm Beach, 656 So.2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), Hirt v. Polk County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 578 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dade, 166 So.2d 827, 828-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

2007The legality vel non of a decision, Horton adds, is not a valid consideration under the supreme court's analysis in Snyder , arguing that other courts have held that the quasi-judicial character of a local government's decision does not change merely because the decision is contrary to a statute or city ordinance, citing in support of this argument: Grace v. Town of Palm Beach, 656 So.2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), Hirt v. Polk County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 578 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dade, 166 So.2d 827, 828-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

2002Cf. Lewis v. State, 591 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1991) (finding error in the trial court's decision to preclude the defendant stepfather from inquiring into his minor stepdaughter's sexual activity with her boyfriend where the evidence was a relevant part of the stepfather's defense against charges of lewd and lascivious assault).

1999Propensity to commit violent crimes surely must be a valid consideration for the jury and the judge.” Ruffin, 397 So.2d at 282-83 .

1997The United States Supreme court granted certiorari "because... a review of this case would help illuminate `the character of the standard that will identify constitutionally excessive awards' of punitive damages." BMW, ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 1595 .

1977At common law such application was addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its decision could not be assigned as error, but now in this state such decisions are reviewable by appellate tribunals, but the ruling of the trial court will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. [Cases cited.]" Cf. Brown v. State, 224 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1969), Kish v. State, 192 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1966).

1977At common law such application was addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its decision could not be assigned as error, but now in this state such decisions are reviewable by appellate tribunals, but the ruling of the trial court will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. [Cases cited.]" Cf. Brown v. State, 224 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1969), Kish v. State, 192 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1966).

1939Lindsay v. Thomas, 128 Fla. 293 , 174 South.

1939Lindsay v. Thomas, 128 Fla. 293 , 174 South.

1939“The case is of a serious characler because the offense involved is a capital one, and though this Court has no power to determine the question of the guilt of the accused, but has the power only to determine whether the lower court committed error in denying the continuance ***" In the case of Reed v. State, 94 Fla. 32 , 113 So. 630 , the defendant was indicted on September 7, 1926, for murder in the first degree. -Counsel for defendant was appointed by the court and defendant was placed on trial on September 8, 1926.

1939“The case is of a serious characler because the offense involved is a capital one, and though this Court has no power to determine the question of the guilt of the accused, but has the power only to determine whether the lower court committed error in denying the continuance ***" In the case of Reed v. State, 94 Fla. 32 , 113 So. 630 , the defendant was indicted on September 7, 1926, for murder in the first degree. -Counsel for defendant was appointed by the court and defendant was placed on trial on September 8, 1926.