From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Branam v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jan 4, 1990
554 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1990)

Summary

In Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1990), the supreme court reaffirmed the principle that sentencing guidelines strove for uniformity in sentencing.

Summary of this case from Darrisaw v. State

Opinion

No. 73924.

January 4, 1990.

Appeal from the District Court of Appeal.

Howard J. Shifke of Anthony F. Gonzalez, P.A., Tampa, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.


We review Branam v. State, 540 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), which certified the following question as one of great public importance:

When there are multiple convictions and maximum sentences which in the aggregate are less than called for by the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, must a trial judge impose consecutive sentences in order to bring the sentences within the guidelines or as close thereto as possible?
Id. at 159. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

The petitioner, Roger Branam, was convicted of sexual battery with threats of force or violence, attempted sexual battery, and false imprisonment. Branam's sentencing guidelines scoresheet recommended a sentence of life in prison. The trial judge sentenced Branam to terms of five years on each of the counts, to run concurrently, and listed reasons for this downward departure. The reasons given for the departure were subsequently found to be invalid, and the case was remanded for resentencing within the guidelines recommendation. Branam v. State, 526 So.2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 534 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1988).

At the resentencing hearing, the judge sentenced the petitioner to the statutory maximum terms of thirty years, five years, and five years, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the court rejected Branam's argument that only the count for which he did not receive the statutory maximum was remanded for resentencing. Noting, however, that the trial judge believed that he had no discretion but to impose consecutive sentences, the court perceived a conflict between the guidelines and section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987), which authorizes the imposition of either concurrent or consecutive sentences. The court affirmed the sentences but posed the certified question.

In adopting the sentencing guidelines, we stated:

Sentencing guidelines are intended to eliminate unwarranted variation in the sentencing process by reducing the subjectivity in interpreting specific offense- and offender-related criteria and in defining their relative importance in the sentencing decision.
In re Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines), 439 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 1983). Unless upward or downward departures are justified by valid written reasons, a trial judge may not depart from the guidelines recommendation. Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 1986). Since uniformity in the sentencing process is the goal, all sentences should reflect, or attempt to reflect, the guidelines as closely as possible unless valid reasons for departure are found. Thus, in those instances where the statutory minimums or maximums preclude sentencing within the guidelines recommendation, the trial judge must impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences, as the case may be, in order to come as close as possible to the guidelines scoresheet recommendation.

We answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court of appeal.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Branam v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jan 4, 1990
554 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1990)

In Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1990), the supreme court reaffirmed the principle that sentencing guidelines strove for uniformity in sentencing.

Summary of this case from Darrisaw v. State

In Branam, the Supreme Court held that, in order to achieve sentencing guidelines' goal of uniformity in sentencing, trial courts must impose a combination of concurrent and consecutive statutory maximum sentences on individual counts to achieve a total sentence that approximates the sentence required by the guidelines, in those situations where the guidelines call for a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum.

Summary of this case from Jones v. State

In Branam, the supreme court held that in the case of multiple convictions where statutory minimums or maximums preclude sentencing within the guidelines for an individual offense, a "trial court must impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences, as the case may be, in order to come as close as possible to the guidelines scoresheet recommendation" unless the trial court justifies the departure by valid written reasons.

Summary of this case from Mannino v. State

In Branam, the supreme court held that in cases, such as this, where statutory minimums preclude sentencing within the guidelines recommendation, the court must impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences to come as close to the guidelines recommendation as possible.

Summary of this case from Boom v. State
Case details for

Branam v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROGER BRANAM, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jan 4, 1990

Citations

554 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1990)

Citing Cases

Fannin v. State

II. STACKING OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES Before the Florida Supreme Court decided Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512…

Fannin v. State

II. STACKING OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES Before the Florida Supreme Court decided Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512…