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
AS OF DEC 31, 2017 This case was green based on 32 citation events through that date. View current →
Quick Summary

A trial court deviates from sentencing guidelines by imposing consecutive sentences on counts from the same incident that were already included in the guideline calculation without providing clear and convincing reasons.

The petitioner challenges a trial court's imposition of a life sentence plus sixty consecutive years on other counts arising from the same incident, where the sentencing guidelines recommended life imprisonment. The central question is whether the trial court may add consecutive sentences on counts already considered in the guideline calculation without stating clear and convincing reasons for departing from the recommended sentence. The court applies the rule that adding consecutive sentences on other counts from the same incident, when those convictions were included in the guideline computation, constitutes a deviation from the recommended sentence. Because the trial judge failed to provide proper reasons for this departure, the court concludes that the sentencing procedure was improper and the judgment must be corrected.

G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1989 · …consecutive sentences on other counts arising from the same incident, when those convictions were taken into account in computing the recommended sentence. at p. 455 ✓
32 citation events as of Dec 31, 2017.
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · viewing as of 2017
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. (filtered to citers dated on or before 2017) How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. State, 550 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) published
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, 540 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) published (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, 633 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) published
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, 623 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) published
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, 581 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) published
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, 543 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) published
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, 511 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) published
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, 673 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) published
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.
Published opinion
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.