Title: State v. Jaggers

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

526 So. 2d 682 (1988)
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Daniel F. JAGGERS, Respondent.
No. 70918.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 5, 1988.
Rehearing Denied July 6, 1988.
*683 Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Gregory G. Costas and Helen P. Nelson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Jaggers v. State, 509 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), in which the district court rejected the trial court's reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, and certified the following as a question of great public importance:
Id. at 1169. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the question in the negative and approve the district court's decision.
Jaggers was convicted of committing a lewd and lascivious assault upon a child. The mother testified at sentencing that Jaggers had been invited into the victim's house and was watching television with several children. While the mother turned away, Jaggers lifted the victim's nightgown and licked her. The child told Jaggers to "stop that" and returned to watching television. For his actions, Jaggers was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The trial court gave the following reasons for departing from the guidelines range of community control or twelve to thirty months' incarceration:
Jaggers, 509 So. 2d  at 1166 n. 1.
The trial court based its first reason for departure on the unsuccessful attempts to treat and control Jaggers through civil commitment to a mental hospital and subsequent community supervision, which had not been factored into the guidelines recommended sentence. The district court found that Jaggers' history of unsuccessful civil treatment was an invalid reason for departure, but questioned whether its ruling was in harmony with Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1987), in which we recognized that
Id. at 393. The district court in the instant case questioned whether the terms "incarceration" and "supervision" encompass Jaggers' civil mental commitment and subsequent community supervision. We conclude that they do not.
The language in Williams clearly refers to incarceration and supervision following criminal conviction or juvenile disposition. Jaggers was charged with a criminal offense but was never convicted. Charges of criminal activity alone have never provided valid grounds for departure. The guidelines state that reasons for departure "shall not include factors relating to prior arrests without conviction." Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11). A finding of guilt has always been required in order to ensure that unsubstantiated charges do not form the basis for extended punishment. See Weems v. State, 469 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1985). To authorize departure based on prior mental treatment without a conviction would punish those who voluntarily seek therapy for a mental illness. We therefore hold that prior civil commitment and supervision for treatment of a mental disorder unrelated to a criminal conviction are invalid grounds for departing from the sentencing guidelines.
The trial court's second reason for departure is essentially a restatement of the first. The trial court reasoned: Jaggers' disorder is uncontrollable without restraint, community supervision has failed as a restraint, extended incarceration is therefore indicated. This reason, which is based upon the failure of Jaggers' prior supervision, is invalid under the rationale stated above. The second district correctly addressed this point in Coleman v. State, 515 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), concluding that:
Id. at 315 (citations omitted). Alternative forms of confinement and supervision are available.
The district court correctly rejected the third and fourth reasons for departure. Every lewd and lascivious assault upon a child that proceeds to trial involves a degree of trauma to the victim. Such an *685 inherent component of the offense cannot support departure. We addressed this point in State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1987), where we held that:
Id. at 284. To support departure, a reason must be clear and convincing. Fla.R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(11). Facts supporting reasons must be credible and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1986). Based upon the record, which consists entirely of the mother's testimony and the trial court's brief statement supporting departure, mental trauma above that which is inherent in the offense has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fourth reason for departure is nothing more than dissatisfaction with the guidelines sentence. Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1986); Scurry v. State, 489 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1986).
Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court, and remand to the trial court for resentencing within the guidelines.
It is so ordered.
McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.