Case Name: Joseph GRIFFIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-10-30
Citations: 497 So. 2d 296
Docket Number: No. BJ-356
Parties: Joseph GRIFFIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 497
Pages: 296–298

Head Matter:
Joseph GRIFFIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. BJ-356.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 30, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1986.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Patricia Con-ners, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court judge's departure from the recommended guidelines sentence of 17-22 years' incarceration to a term of 30 years. The defendant's failure to make a contemporaneous objection to the departure does not foreclose this appeal. State v. Whitfield, 487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986).
The trial court listed eight reasons for justifying his departure, the first three of which we find to be valid, and the remainder invalid. Ordinarily we would be required by the rule stated in Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), to reverse the departed sentence, because both valid and invalid grounds have been advanced by the trial court, however, in that the trial court has stated that if any one of the reasons given were later upheld as valid, it would impose the same sentence, we affirm on the theory that the sentence on review meets the reasonable doubt standard of Albritton. See Leopard v. State 491 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Since we perceive that trial judges may continue to include similar standard language as that at bar in departure sentences, we certify the following question to be one of great public importance:
DOES A TRIAL COURT'S STATEMENT, MADE AT THE TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, THAT IT WOULD DEPART FOR ANY ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BOTH VALID AND INVALID REASONS ARE FOUND ON REVIEW, SATISFY THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN ALBRITTON V STATE 1
AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
BARFIELD, J., concurs specially with an opinion.