Case Name: Juanita S. MIDDLETON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-05-28
Citations: 489 So. 2d 201
Docket Number: No. 85-1056
Parties: Juanita S. MIDDLETON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DANAHY, A.C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 489
Pages: 201–205

Head Matter:
Juanita S. MIDDLETON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 85-1056.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 28, 1986.
J. Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Karla Foreman Wright, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James H. Dysart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
FRANK, Judge.
The Appellant, Juanita S. Middleton, joins the everlengthening list of the criminally convicted challenging the implementation of guidelines' sentencing.
Prior to being charged with a violation of section 401.41(3), Florida Statutes (1985), as a result of her felonious battery upon an emergency medical technician, Middleton had acquired a substantial record of convictions for violence, grand theft, delivery and possession of narcotics, disorderly intoxication and driving while intoxicated. Following the entry of a guilty plea to the instant offense, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing during which it adjudicated her guilty, rejected placing her in an alcohol abuse program- coupled with community control, and announced its purpose to depart from a presumptive sentence. The trial court's next comment was "I am going outside the guidelines to which you object. She's a menace to society in general and for the protection of society she needs to be in jail." Although the score-sheet in the record discloses a presumptive sentence of community control or 12-30 months incarceration, the trial court imposed a five year jail term upon Middleton. The trial court then directed the prosecutor to prepare a departure order physically embodying her criminal history record and pointing out that the present conviction is "the fourth conviction of this nature...."
Middleton urges four points as bases for the reversal of her sentence. We have considered each of the grounds and reverse upon the principle expressed in Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985), that "[fjactors already taken into account in calculating the guidelines score can never support departure." State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986). In applying Hendrix to this proceeding, we have noted that the reasons for departure relied upon by the trial court are substantially in parallel with those appearing in the Hendrix departure order. See 475 So.2d at 1220 (Adkins, J., dissenting). If, indeed, the trial court adheres to the conclusion that Middleton is the threat to society she is characterized as being at sentencing and if her criminal history record supports the invocation of section 775.084, Florida Statutes, reliance upon and obedience to that statute, as we perceive it, offer a valid basis for departure. See Johnson v. State, 486 So.2d 53, 54, fn. 1 (Fla.2d DCA 1986) and Hale v. State, 490 So.2d 122 (Fla.2d DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
DANAHY, A.C.J., concurs.
LEHAN, J., concurs specially with opinion.