Case Name: Charles BURKE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-09-20
Citations: 456 So. 2d 1245
Docket Number: No. 84-7
Parties: Charles BURKE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COWART, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 456
Pages: 1245–1249

Head Matter:
Charles BURKE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 84-7.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Sept. 20, 1984.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1984.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lucinda H. Young, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for robbery with a firearm. Appellant alleges as error the trial court's failure to sentence him in accordance with the sentencing guidelines enumerated in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701.
Although appellant committed the robbery before the effective date of the guidelines, he elected to be sentenced under them. The recommended sentence range for this category 3 offense is three and one-half to four and one-half years incarceration. The trial court departed from the guidelines and sentenced appellant to fifteen years incarceration.
Subsection d.ll. of criminal rule 3.701 requires that the trial court accompany any sentence outside of the guidelines with a "written statement delineating the reasons for the departure." In the instant case the trial court did not provide a written statement. The court did, however, dictate its reasons for departure into the record. Those reasons are transcribed and are part of the record on appeal. Like the Fourth District Court of Appeal, we believe that oral explanation in the record sufficiently provides the opportunity for meaningful appellate review for purposes of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701. Harvey v. State, 450 So.2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); cf Cave v. State, 445 So.2d 341 (Fla.1984); Thompson v. State, 328 So.2d 1 (Fla.1976).
The trial court explained that the guideline sentence is inappropriate in this case because appellant's prior record (which includes juvenile dispositions) reflects an escalating pattern of violent criminal activity over a ten-year period and reflects that appellant has failed to respond to the state's repeated efforts to rehabilitate and/or punish him. In reaching these conclusions about appellant, the lower court considered portions of appellant's pri- or adult criminal and juvenile delinquency record which the guidelines preclude him from considering when tallying up the scoresheet to determine the recommended sentence. This is proper. A trial court could never deviate from a guideline sentence if, in deciding to deviate, it cannot consider factors other than those it considers in arriving at the guideline sentence. We hold that a trial court may base a departure from the guidelines on factors which it could not contemplate in calculating the guideline sentence. Weems v. State, 451 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
We are aware that the Fourth District Court of Appeal reached a contrary result in Harvey v. State. We do not follow Harvey because that result unduly limits the court from deviating from the sentencing guidelines. We certify a conflict with Harvey.
The trial court stated reasons sufficient to support sentencing appellant above the recommended range and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
COWART, J., concurs.
SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.
. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 c.
. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.988(c).