Case Name: Robert REICHMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-10-30
Citations: 497 So. 2d 293
Docket Number: No. BJ-264
Parties: Robert REICHMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 497
Pages: 293–296

Head Matter:
Robert REICHMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. BJ-264.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 30, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1986.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Gary L. Printy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of various offenses that carried a recommended guideline range of 12-17 years, from which the trial court departed and imposed a sentence of 25V2 years. Of the seven reasons for departure given by the trial court, we find only the last reason — that the victim of the offense of attempted murder was a law enforcement officer — to be of merit. See State v. Baker, 483 So.2d 423 (Fla.1986). All the remaining reasons are invalid because they cite circumstances that have either been factored into the recommended range, were related to prior arrests without conviction, or fail the clear and convincing standard. Having found only one of the seven reasons cited as a clear and convincing reason for departure, it must be shown by the state beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence. Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985). We find that the reasonable doubt standard has been met and therefore affirm.
After stating his reasons for departure, the trial judge concluded that if any of the reasons stated were later determined on appeal to be both valid and invalid, he would nevertheless impose the same sentence outside the recommended range. With this unequivocal statement in the record, we find that the trial judge would have departed on the basis of the last reason alone, thus satisfying the reasonable doubt standard of Albritton v. State. Because we foresee that trial court judges will continue to include similar standard language when departing from guideline sentences, we certify the following question to be of great public importance:
DOES A TRIAL COURT'S STATEMENT, MADE AT THE TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, THAT IT WOULD DE PART 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?
AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
BARFIELD, J., concurs specially with an opinion.