Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Rease v. State, 493 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lewis v. State (fladistctapp, 1989-10-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Rease v. State, 493 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla. 1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Junco v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
If the court desires to impose consecutive sentences for a term of years, to be served consecutive to the life sentence, it must state clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” The Rease rule is limited, however, to “consecutive sentences on other counts arising from the same incident, when those convictions were taken into account in computing the recommended sentence.” 493 So.2d at 455 (emphasis added).
cited Cited "see" Ivey v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rease v. State, 493 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1986); Wood v. State, 593 So.2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Dow v. State, 610 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), dismissed, 621 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1993).
cited Cited "see" Abney v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rease v. State, 493 So.2d 454 (Fla.1986).
cited Cited "see" Green v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rease v. State, 493 So.2d 454 (Fla.1986); Lewis v. State, 550 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
cited Cited "see" Fox v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rease v. State, 493 So.2d 454 (Fla.1986); Pride v. State, 511 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Wilcox v. State, 500 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
cited Cited "see" Pride v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rease v. State, 493 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cleveland v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Rease v. State, 493 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1986) (trial court could not deviate from recommended sentence by adding consecutive sentences on other counts arising from the same incident, when those convictions were taken into account in computing the recommended sentence, without setting forth proper reasons for its departure; therefore re-sentencing was necessary); Kelly v. State, 616 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (because guidelines called for either nonstate prison sentence, community control, or 12-22 months in state prison for offense, imposition of two consecutive 22 month terms in stat…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael REASE, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
68069.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sep 4, 1986.
493 So. 2d 454
Overton.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Patricia Conners, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review Rease v. State, 478 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), in which the district court certified the[*455] following question as being of great public importance:

Whether, when the sentencing guidelines recommend a sentence of life imprisonment, the trial court may sentence a defendant to life imprisonment plus sixty years in prison on other counts, to run consecutive to the life sentence, without stating clear and convincing reasons for departing from the guidelines.

Id. at 1151. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We answer the question in the negative and quash the district court decision. We conclude that the trial court did deviate from the recommended sentence by adding consecutive sentences on other counts arising from the same incident, when those convictions were taken into account in computing the recommended sentence. The trial judge failed to set forth proper reasons for his departure. We adopt and approve the analysis and reasoning of the dissent of Judge Zehmer directed to the specific issue in this case, quash the district court decision, and direct the district court to remand this cause for resentencing.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SHAW, EHRLICH and BARKETT, JJ., concur.