Case Name: William FELTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-01-14
Citations: 537 So. 2d 995
Docket Number: No. BJ-413
Parties: William FELTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: THOMPSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 537
Pages: 995–1009

Head Matter:
William FELTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. BJ-413.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 14, 1988.
On Rehearing En Banc Jan. 20, 1989.
Second Rehearing Denied March 1, 1989.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Ann Cocheu, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Royall P. Terry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
BARFIELD, Judge.
William Felts appeals his ten year sentence for armed robbery, asserting that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence in excess of the recommended guidelines sentence of three years based upon reasons which were not clear and convincing. We affirm the sentence.
The trial judge gave four reasons for departure, which included the fact that appellant used excessive force in the robbery by pointing a firearm at the victim and threatening him with bodily harm, that the victim suffered "an extreme emotional impact" and "a severe financial impact" in the loss of a "practically brand new automobile," that appellant drove the victim's automobile at excessive speeds in an attempt to elude authorities which resulted in an accident in which one of his accomplices was killed, and that appellant engaged in a gun battle with the police during his flight which resulted in unnecessary danger to many persons.
Appellant contends that the last two reasons were improper because an attempt to avoid arrest by fleeing is an insufficient reason for departure, citing Carter v. State, 485 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., 494 So.2d 1149 (Fla.1986), and that these reasons constituted various crimes of which he was not convicted, citing Trainor v. State, 468 So.2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and Pursell v. State, 483 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). He asserts that, according to the scoresheet, there were neither additional offenses at conviction nor a prior record. Appellant admits that his counsel stated at the sentencing hearing that he had entered a plea and had been sentenced to a period of incarceration, but asserts that the record does not reflect the arrest or convictions.
Alternatively, he argues that "any inferences of arrests or convictions" were not credible and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, citing State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986). He asserts that threatening the victim with a gun is an inherent element of robbery, that use of a firearm had been factored into the score-sheet, and that use of the impact on the victim is prohibited by rule 3.701(b)(1). Appellant seeks remand for resentencing under Albritton v. State, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), in the event the court finds some of the reasons for departure valid and some invalid.
The State asserts that appellant's high speed flight from the pursuing officers and the resulting death of his passenger constituted an extreme risk to the physical safety of both citizens and law enforcement officers, and that such conduct was not an inherent element of the offense of robbery, but was an aspect of the crime which would permit a sentencing departure, since it was not factored into the scoresheet. The State argues that the sentencing court may depart from the guidelines based upon circumstances surrounding the offense, citing Manning v. State, 452 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and points out that in Garcia v. State, 454 So.2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this court upheld the trial court's finding that a high speed automobile chase following a robbery and the firing of shots at the pursuing officer constituted clear and convincing reasons for a sentencing departure. The State contends that the notation on the order (that any one of the reasons given would justify departure regardless of the presence of impermissible reasons) clearly indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have departed from the sentencing guidelines for any permissible reasons given, so that affirmance is authorized under Albritton.
We find that the first two reasons recited above do not justify departure, because pointing a firearm at the victim and threatening bodily harm are inherent com ponents of the crime of armed robbery, the "extreme emotional impact" on the victim is not supported by the record, and "severe financial impact" on the victim is not a clear and convincing reason for departure. The third reason is also invalid because it involves circumstances surrounding the offense for which convictions were not obtained (the high speed chase and the resulting fatal accident).
We find, however that the last reason justifies departure, because the "gun battle" constituted aggravated assaults on police officers, for which Georgia convictions (which could not be factored into appellant's scoresheet) were obtained, and this incident posed an unnecessary risk of harm. Convictions for crimes committed subsequent to the primary offense which cannot be scored may be used to justify departure.
In Griffis v. State, 509 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1987), the Florida Supreme Court held that a statement by the trial court that it would depart for any of the reasons given, standing alone, is not enough to satisfy the State's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would not have been affected by the absence of the impermissible reasons, and that such a sentence may be affirmed only when the appellate court is satisfied by the entire record that the State has met its burden. We do not interpret Griffis to mean that the appellate court may not take into account such a statement by the trial court, but only that it may not rely on such a statement without considering the entire record.
In this case, we would be inclined to find that the record, including the trial court's statement, demonstrates that the same sentence would have been imposed in the absence of the impermissible reasons, and that the sentence may therefore be affirmed. However, recent legislative amendment of the sentencing guidelines statute raises a question whether this court should apply Albritton in this or subsequent appeals.
The original versions of section 921.001, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701, establishing the sentencing guidelines mechanism, did not specify the method and scope of appellate review of departure sentences. In Albritton, the Florida Supreme Court attempted to divine the legislative intent in this regard, concluding that the Florida Legislature intended that a sentence based upon both valid and invalid reasons for departure should be remanded to the trial judge for reconsideration unless the State proved to the appellate court that the trial judge would have imposed the same sentence if the invalid reasons for departure were eliminated, and that the legislature also intended that even if a departure sentence were proper, the extent of the departure should be reviewed by the appellate court under an abuse of discretion standard.
Chapter 86-273, Laws of Florida, amended section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes, to provide that "[t]he extent of departure from a guidelines sentence shall not be subject to appellate review." Chapter 87- 110, Laws of Florida, effective July 1,1987, included an amendment to section 921.-001(5):
A departure sentence shall be based upon circumstances or factors which reasonably justify the aggravation or mitigation of the sentence. The level of proof necessary to establish facts supporting a departure from a sentence under the guidelines is a preponderance of the evidence. When multiple reasons exist to support a departure from a guidelines sentence, the departure shall be upheld when at least one circumstance or factor justifies the departure regardless of the presence of other circumstances or factors found not to justify departure.
In Ochoa v. State, 509 So.2d 1115 (Fla.1987), the court noted the 1986 amendment, but stated that it did not reach the issue of whether the legislature can constitutionally "restrict appellate review of sentences" because it found no valid reason for departure in that case. In Griffis v. State, issued July 16, 1987, the court noted that it did not decide the effect of section 921.-001(5) as amended in 1987, upon cases involving crimes committed subsequent to July 1, 1987. In subsequent decisions involving departure sentences, the supreme court has applied the Albritton standard.
These opinions seemed to suggest that the supreme court might view the 1987 amendment quoted above as an unconstitutional attempt to dictate appellate procedure, or as a substantive change in the law which may be applied only to cases in which the offense was committed after the effective date of the amendment so as to avoid violating the ex post facto provisions of the federal and Florida constitutions.
Then in Booker v. State, 514 So.2d 1079 (Fla.1987), the supreme court held that the 1986 amendment restricting review of the extent of departure sentences did not violate the constitutional separation of powers provision. The court observed that its holding in Albritton on this issue had been premised in part upon its view that appellate review of the extent of departure under an abuse of discretion standard would further the purpose of the guidelines (uniformity of sentencing), and that the legislature's elimination of such review may have undermined that purpose, but that this observation "goes to the wisdom of the amendment and not to its constitutionality." Id. at 1082. The court also held that application of chapter 86-273 to crimes committed before its effective date would violate the ex post facto provisions of the federal and Florida constitutions.
Appellant asserts that application of the quoted section of the 1987 amendment to this appeal would violate his rights under three constitutional provisions: due process, ex post facto, and separation of powers. We disagree.
We observe at the outset the existence of certain well-established rules of statutory construction and judicial restraint. In determining the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, the courts are under an obligation to give it a construction which will uphold it rather than invalidate it, if there is any reasonable basis for so doing, and an act of the legislature should not be struck down if there is any reason able theory upon which it can be upheld.
Every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative act, since the presumption of constitutionality continues until the contrary is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. If a statute which is claimed to be unconstitutional is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which would lead to a finding of unconstitutionality and the other of validity, the court must adopt the construction which will support the validity of the statute. In testing the constitutionality of a statute, the court should take into consideration the whole of the act, and may consider its history, the evil to be corrected or the object to be obtained, and the intention of the lawmaking body. When a subject lies within the police power of the state, debatable questions as to the reasonableness of the exercise of that power are not for the courts but for the legislature to determine.
With regard to the separation of powers question, it follows that it is the duty of the courts of Florida to interpret the quoted section of chapter 87-110 as delineating what constitutes a legal departure sentence, so as to pass constitutional muster, instead of interpreting the statute as an unconstitutional attempt to dictate appellate procedure, notwithstanding its unfortunate "shall be upheld" language.
The judiciary cannot focus on individual words outside the context of the entire chapter. The legislature has provided criteria for a valid departure sentence under the guidelines. Confronted with a departure sentence which meets those criteria, the appellate court does not have the authority to overturn the sentence; in other words, it must uphold the sentence. The phrase "shall be upheld" means, therefore, that a departure sentence meeting the statutory criteria (i.e., one which is based on at least one factor or circumstance which reasonably justifies aggravating or mitigating the sentence) is a valid sentence under the guidelines, notwithstanding the presence of other circumstances or factors which do not justify aggravating or mitigating the sentence.
This interpretation reflects the legislative intent to say what constitutes a legal sentence under the sentencing guidelines, when a departure from the recommended sentence is involved. The quoted section of chapter 87-110 can therefore reasonably be interpreted as a constitutional exercise of the police power which does not violate article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution.
With regard to the ex post facto question, it should be noted that, notwithstanding its cryptic footnote in Griffis, the supreme court so far has not held that chapter 87-110 is a substantive change in the law which may be applied only to cases in which the offense was committed after the effective date of the amendment. The ex post facto ruling in Booker appears to be premised on the court's observation that under the statute as amended in 1986, "a person validly sentenced outside the guidelines may not have his departure sentence reviewed or reduced even though by definition, as set forth in Albritton, virtually no reasonable judge would have imposed such a sentence." 514 So.2d at 1084. The court held that the amended statute "clearly operates to the detriment of those whose crimes were committed prior to [its effective date]" and therefore could not constitutionally be applied to them.
While we recognize that the supreme court has determined the ex post facto question with regard to chapter 86-273, it can be argued that the 1986 and 1987 amendments were not in fact intended to "change" the law, but were meant merely to clarify what the statutory law has always been. In other words, these legislative amendments may arguably be read as clarifications of the Florida Legislature's intent that a departure sentence based upon at least one circumstance or factor which reasonably justifies the aggravation or mitigation of the sentence is legal, even if the trial judge has articulated circumstances or factors which do not justify aggravation or mitigation of the sentence, and that any departure which is so justified is legal if it is within the statutory maximum and minimum sentences. See Hall v. State, 511 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. pending, No. 71,078 (Fla.), discussing Bass v. State, 12 F.L.W. 289 (Fla. June 11, 1987), rehearing pending.
However, even if the implied rationale of Booker (legislative amendments seen as "changes" in the law which had been established by the court's opinion in Albritton) is applied to the quoted section of chapter 87-110, the amendment does not change the legal consequences of the defendant's acts completed before its effective date to his disadvantage, or otherwise violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. This is so because the 1987 amendment does not preclude appellate review of the validity of the reasons given by the trial judge for departure, but merely clarifies the law with respect to the legality of a departure sentence which is based upon both valid and invalid reasons, and thus presents a very different situation from that addressed in Booker.
Under Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, the trial court may reduce or modify a legal sentence imposed by it within 60 days after receipt of an appellate court mandate affirming the judgment or sentence or an order dismissing such an appeal, or within 60 days of disposition by a higher court. This rule provides a mechanism by which a trial judge may reconsider a sentence which may have become "unreasonable" because some of the reasons given for departure have been found to be invalid.
Under section 921.001, as it existed both before and after July 1, 1987, a defendant may have his sentence reduced by operation of Rule 3.800. Under the supreme court's construction of the 1986 amendment in Booker, he may also have the length of his sentence reviewed by an ap pellate court if his crime occurred prior to the effective date of chapter 86-273. Under Albritton, the appellate court may mandate reconsideration of a sentence which was based on both valid and invalid reasons, but it may not mandate that the sentence be reduced if the crime occurred after the effective date of chapter 86-273, and it may mandate reduction of the sentence for a crime committed before that date only if it finds that the sentencing court abused its discretion.
The effect of chapter 87-110 is to eliminate the remand to the trial judge, which had been required by Albritton when both valid and invalid reasons for departure were articulated, for reconsideration of the sentence in light of the appellate court's rulings on the validity of the reasons given for departure. Because Rule 3.800 has always provided a mechanism by which the trial judge may, sua sponte or upon the defendant's request, reconsider the sentence, application of chapter 87-110 to appeals pending after its effective date does not have any substantive detrimental effect on defendants whose offenses were committed prior to its effective date. See Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423,107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987), in which the court observed that the ex post facto prohibition does not restrict legislative control of remedies and modes of procedure which do not affect matters of substance, even when the law acts to the defendant's detriment. See also Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977), in which the court held that a change in the procedure by which the penalty in a capital case was implemented was not a change in the penalty itself.
Whether the 1987 statutory amendment is construed as merely a clarification of the legislative intent, or as a change in the law, it does not constitute a violation of the constitutional ex post facto prohibition, and should be applied by the appellate courts to all cases pending after July 1, 1987. See 49 Fla.Jur.2d, Statutes § 106-108 (1984); 14 Fla.Jur.2d, Criminal Law § 11 (1979); and 10 Fla.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law § 136-171 (1979), including supplements, and cases cited therein.
Appellant's due process argument, premised as it is on a supposed "right" to application of the law in effect at the time his notice of appeal was filed, is without merit and is not supported by the authorities cited in his brief.
The sentence is AFFIRMED under the authority of chapter 87-110, Laws of Florida, because it is supported by a factor which reasonably justifies aggravation of the sentence beyond the recommended range.
We certify, as a matter of great public importance, the following question:
Whether that portion of chapter 87-110, Laws of Florida, which amends section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes, is applicable to appellate review of sentences imposed for offenses which were committed prior to July 1, 1987.
THOMPSON, J., concurs.
ZEHMER, J., concurs and dissents with opinion.
. The high speed chase, the gun battle, and the accident occurred in Georgia.
. Appellant's pre-sentence investigation report, which was not originally included in the record sent to this court, indicates that prior to his sentencing on the Florida armed robbery charge, appellant had pleaded guilty in Georgia to two counts of aggravated assault upon police officers and had been sentenced to seven years incarceration.
. Rule 3.701(b)(1) states: "Sentencing should be neutral with respect to race, gender, and social and economic status." In some circumstances, however, the emotional trauma suffered by the victim may justify departure from the recommended guidelines sentence. State v. Rousseau, 509 So.2d 281 (Fla.1987); Whitfield v. State, 515 So.2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Mora v. State, 515 So.2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Crouse v. State, 518 So.2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 16, 1987); Harris v. State, 509 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hipp v. State, 509 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Shaw v. State, 510 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Alten v. State, 522 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
. In Garcia, separate counts of attempted first degree murder were nol pressed as part of the plea agreement, but the court found that Rule 3.701(d)(ll) did not preclude the trial court's consideration of the circumstances giving rise to the dropped charges. However, in Cummings v. State, 489 So.2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the court held that reference to charges dismissed as a condition of the plea was precluded by the rule. See also Dallas v. State, 490 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), in which the court held that danger to others caused by a high speed chase and shooting at police (the shot penetrated an occupied mobile home) would not support a departure sentence, because it was factually based on charges of shooting into a building and attempted murder which had been dropped as part of the plea agreement.
. Mathis v. State, 515 So.2d 214 (Fla.1987).
. State v. Mischler, 488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986); Hankey v. State, 485 So.2d 827 (Fla.1986).
. Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501 (Fla.1986). See also State v. Tyner, 506 So.2d 405 (Fla.1987); Cowan v. State, 505 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Sabb v. State, 479 So.2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). But see Williams v. State, 462 So.2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. den., 471 So.2d 44 (Fla.1985).
. The two Georgia convictions for aggravated assault on police officers could not be scored, since they did not constitute "additional offenses at conviction" under rule 3.701(d)(4), nor "prior record" under rule 3.701(d)(5).
. Campos v. State, 515 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
. Austin v. State, 507 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Pugh v. State, 499 So.2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Kigar v. State, 495 So.2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Wright v. State, 491 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Safford v. State, 488 So.2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Hunt v. State, 468 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Prince v. State, 461 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); and Davis v. State, 455 So.2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
. The parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs addressing the question of the effect of chapter 87-110 on the disposition of this appeal.
. Appellant contends that the 1987 amendment should not be applied to his appeal, relying on Griffis v. State, asserting that he and Griffis were similarly situated in the appellate process when the amendment took effect, but that the supreme court, which had the opportunity to discuss the law's constitutionality and retroac-tivity, did not consider the issue ripe for adjudication.
. Reichman v. State, 511 So.2d 995 (Fla.1987); Sanders v. State, 510 So.2d 296 (Fla.1987).
.Appellant contends that chapter 87-110 "abolished the right to effective appeal and created a presumption of correctness of a guidelines departure," so that to apply the amendment to his case, which was already in the "pipeline" when it became law, would violate his due process rights. He argues that it changed the appellate standard and "clearly disadvantages a defendant exercising his appellate rights, which no doubt are substantive." He asserts that the amendment, which "in essence repeals an appellate standard of proof," en croaches on the powers of the judiciary over sentencing and appellate review.
. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981); Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 394 So.2d 981 (Fla.1981); State v. Keaton, 371 So.2d 86 (Fla.1979); Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So.2d 737 (Fla.1974).
. State v. Kinner, 398 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1981); State v. Cormier, 375 So.2d 852 (Fla.1979); Hamilton v. State, 366 So.2d 8 (Fla.1978); Leeman v. State, 357 So.2d 703 (Fla.1978); Rollins v. State, 354 So.2d 61 (Fla.1978); Carter v. Sparkman, 335 So.2d 802 (Fla.1976), cert. den., Sparkman v. Carter, 429 U.S. 1041, 97 S.Ct. 740, 50 L.Ed.2d 753 (1977); Corn v. State, 332 So.2d 4 (Fla.1976); State v. Reilly Enterprises, 298 So.2d 405 (Fla.1974); State v. Aiuppa, 298 So.2d 391 (Fla.1974).
. City of Daytona Beach v. Del Percio, 476 So.2d 197 (Fla.1985); Boynton v. State, 64 So.2d 536(Fla.1953).
. Scarborough v. Newsome, 150 Fla. 220, 7 So.2d 321 (Fla.1942); Snively Groves v. Mayo, 135 Fla. 300, 184 So. 839 (Fla.1938).
. Gandy v. Borras, 114 Fla. 503, 154 So. 248 (Fla.1934).
. In Albritton, the Florida Supreme Court construed the sentencing guidelines legislation as requiring the trial judge to articulate only valid reasons to justify the departure (i.e., it is error to articulate a circumstance or factor which does not justify departure), and as requiring remand for resentencing unless the State can demonstrate harmless error (that the sentence would not have been affected by the presence of the invalid reason for departure). However, neither section 921.001, Florida Statutes, nor Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 requires such a construction.
To paraphrase Hall, construing Bass:
An appellate court decision construing a statute defining the sentence that can lawfully be imposed does not establish what the statute actually means and, in this sense, what the law actually is, but only what the law may be until actually approved or clarified by the legislature which enacted the statute. Once clarified by the legislature, the statute must be given that meaning from its inception, not only in cases currently on appeal, but also in those cases which have already become final after appeal.
The requirement of Rule 3.701 that a departure sentence be supported by "clear and convincing reasons to warrant aggravating or mitigating the sentence" has also been clarified by the statutory amendment to mean "circumstances or factors which reasonably justify the aggravation or mitigation of the sentence." The supreme court's requirement in Mischler that reasons for departure be supported by facts which are credible and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not mandated by the language of either the statute or the rule, has also apparently been rejected by the legislature, which has clarified its intent that the facts supporting departure be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
. In Dobbert, the trial judge could, under the new procedure, overrule the jury's recommendation and impose the death penalty. The court found that ex post facto concerns were satisfied because the statute in effect when the murders were committed warned Dobbert of the penalty prescribed. By contrast, the law in effect when Miller acted did not warn him of the greater presumptive sentence prescribed for his crime by the amended guidelines.