State v. Randall, 746 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Randall, 746 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“in addition, even if some of the court's stated reasons are insufficient, only one valid reason is necessary to sustain a departure.”
28 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Davis (fladistctapp, 2014-06-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Davis
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in addition, even if some of the court's stated reasons are insufficient, only one valid reason is necessary to sustain a departure.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gerard Baldie v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
In State v. Fontaine, 955 So. 2d 1248, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (Warner, J., concurring), the defendant’s criminal record included two misdemeanors that were committed ten years earlier, and in State v. Randall, 746 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), the defendant had only one prior criminal conviction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sarah M. Hollinger
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
We find that Hollinger's multiple offenses cannot be considered to be isolated.3 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing.4 3We recognize the holdings in State v. Merritt, 714 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and State v. Randall, 746 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), but find that this case is distinguishable based on the number of offenses that occurred over a span of several months as opposed to several days. 4The trial court is not precluded from resentencing Hollinger to a downward departure if the sentence is supported by valid grounds and there is competent, 5 REVERSE and …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sarah M. Hollinger
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
EVANDER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur. 3We recognize the holdings in State v. Merritt, 714 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and State v. Randall, 746 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), but find that this case is distinguishable based on the number of offenses that occurred over a span of several months as opposed to several days. 5
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Fureman
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Fureman argues that our prior decision in State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), supports the trial court’s finding of unsophistication and requires us to affirm the present case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Waterman
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Fontaine, 955 So.2d 1248, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (Warner, J., concurring) (the defendant’s current offense was an isolated incident where his criminal record included two misdemeanors that were committed ten years earlier); State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (the defendant’s current offense was an isolated incident where he had only one prior criminal conviction).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Voight
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
While the *1176 list of statutory departure reasons provided in the statute is not exclusive, see State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), a downward departure for reasons not delineated by statute is only permissible if supported by competent, substantial evidence and not otherwise prohibited.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Stephenson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. White
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that evidence supported trial court's finding that sales of cocaine were isolated incidents where such sales occurred during a period of several days in December, were to the same person, and were at a time when the appellee was trying to provide a good Christmas for his family).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hinson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
See id.; State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). "[E]ven if some of the court's stated reasons are insufficient, only one valid reason is necessary to sustain a departure." Randall, 746 So.2d at 552 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Gilson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
In case number 2000-00800-CF, Gilson was charged by information with five counts: two counts of burglary of a dwelling with different victims (2F), possession of cannabis under 20 grams (1M); and two counts of grand theft of a .22 revolver (same victim) (3F). [2] Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065 (Fla.1999); State v. Rosa, 774 So.2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); E.S.B. v. State, 793 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); State v. White, 755 So.2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). [3] State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). [4] § 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. (1997); State v. Sanders, 728 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2…
discussed Cited "see" STATE OF FLORIDA v. SHERRY CROSSLEY-ROBINSON
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Randall, 746 So. 2d at 552 (four separate sales of cocaine within a thirteen-day period to the same person were “isolated incidents, close in time.”); Merritt, 714 So. 2d at 1153 (three sex acts involving a single victim were “isolated” because “they were something the defendant had never engaged in before, in his 25 year lifetime, and they took place in a relatively short span of time.”).
discussed Cited "see" Scott H. Rowe v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (allowing downward departure sentence where defendant had only one prior conviction and current offense was isolated incident occurring in short span of time during Christmas when he was trying to earn money for his chil- ■ dren).
cited Cited "see" State v. Laroe
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); State v. Turro, 724 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
cited Cited "see" State v. Tyrrell
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); State v. Turro, 724 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Kelleher
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare State v. Fontaine, 955 So.2d 1248, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (Warner, J., concurring specially) (“Having only two misdemeanor convictions ten years [prior] does not prevent a finding that this offense is an isolated incident.”), and State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding an incident was isolated where there was only one prior conviction), with State v. Gaines, 971 So.2d 219, 220-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that where defendant had eighteen prior convictions including several forcible felonies, a downward departure under section 921.0026(2)(j) cannot be…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Stanton
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Section 921.0026(2) provides a list of non-exclusive mitigating circumstances which will justify a downward departure, none of which have any applicability to this case. [2] See section *1132 921.0026(1); see also State v. Randall, 746 So.2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); State v. Turro, 724 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Tyrone Bernard RANDALL, Appellee.
99-1328.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec 13, 1999.
746 So. 2d 550
W. Sharp.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

[*551] Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Belle B. Schumann, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Janet Brook Goodrich, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

W. SHARP, J.

The state appeals a downward departure sentence which the trial court imposed on Randall in four separate cases.[1] We affirm for the reasons stated below.

Randall was charged with possession and sale of cocaine in four instances to the same confidential informant over a time period of several days in December 1998. The amounts totaled 1.8 grams and netted Randall $220.00. After his arrest, Randall made a full confession to the police. He has two children, who he is supporting, and he explained he was trying to get money for Christmas. Randall is twenty-one years old, and had no prior drug charges. He appeared remorseful for his crimes and explained he was not a drug dealer.

At a hearing, the trial judge told Randall that he would sentence Randall to fifteen months in prison, a downward departure: "If you plead, but I can't do anything unless you plead." Randall entered a plea of guilty. The court then imposed the departure sentence.

On appeal, the state argues that the trial judge improperly negotiated a sentence with Randall in exchange for a guilty plea. See State v. Gitto, 731 So.2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 728 So.2d 202 (Fla.1998). However, in this case the state did not object to the alleged improper plea bargaining, and thus this issue has not been preserved. See State v. Odum, ___ So.2d ___, 1999 WL 543232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Second, the state argues that the reasons given for the departure sentence are invalid. At the hearing, defense counsel urged the court to depart based on the fact that Randall had confessed, that he was young and that the sales involved the same confidential informant over a short period of time around Christmas. The[*552] state objected, claiming that these reasons were not legally recognized reasons for departure. This objection came before the sentence was imposed.

When the judge pronounced the departure sentence, he then stated on the record his reasons:

The Court is going to depart from the guidelines in as much as you don't have a prior criminal record of any significance at all; just that one.
And, two, this was an isolated incident in as much as the evidence is that it was around Christmas time, you had children to support, and that you were trying to make some money for that.
Number three, the same CI came to you and made these four charges against you in a short period of time, in a period of less than thirteen days at Christmas time which supports your story.
Number four, you made a full confession.
Number five, you show remorse in court today, and that justice will be better served for you and your family if you served fifteen months.

The state then objected to the downward departure sentence "for the record," but stated no grounds. Assuming the earlier objection can carry over to the court's reasons for departure, the state is not entitled to relief.

Section 921.0026(2) provides a list of mitigating circumstances which will justify a downward departure. This list includes the instance in which a defendant cooperates with the state to resolve the offense, the offense was committed in an unsophisticated manner, and the criminal acts constitute isolated incidents for which the defendant has shown remorse. § 921.0026(2)(i) and (j), Fla. Stat.(1999). However, this list of statutory departure reasons is not exclusive. § 921.0026(1). See also State v. Turro, 724 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). In addition, even if some of the court's stated reasons are insufficient, only one valid reason is necessary to sustain a departure. § 921.002(3). See also Paul v. State, 722 So.2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State v. Whiting, 711 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).[2]

In this case, the trial court determined the sales constituted isolated incidents, close in time, to the same person, at a time when Randall was trying to provide a good Christmas for his family, (an unsophisticated behavior) and that he was remorseful. These grounds are legally sufficient to support a downward departure sentence. State v. Sachs, 526 So.2d 48 (Fla.1988); State v. McCloud, 721 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); State v. Merritt, 714 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

1 This case has been ordered to travel together with case numbers 99-246, 99-1066, and 99-1095. According to the state, these appeals all involve improper downward departure sentences entered by the same trial judge.
2 The state is correct that lack of a prior criminal history is not a valid reason for departure because that fact is taken into account by the guidelines. State v. Whiting, 711 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The state also argues that remorse alone is insufficient to sustain a downward departure. See, e.g., State v. Falocco, 730 So.2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (downward departure from guidelines sentence is permissible if the offense was committed in an unsophisticated manner, it was an isolated incident, and the defendant has shown remorse, but all three elements must be shown). However, in Whiting, the second district observed that the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Sachs, 526 So.2d 48 (Fla.1988), could be interpreted as holding that remorse alone is a sufficient mitigating factor. In any event, the trial court's reasons for departure should be viewed in their totality.