Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Osborne v. State
Citations: 644 So. 2d 588; 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10586; 1994 WL 594700Docket: No. 94-1779
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 1, 1994; Florida; State Appellate Court
Tyrone Osborne's appeal challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the trial court improperly imposed an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Osborne had pled guilty to ten third-degree felonies in 1988 and was on probation when he committed attempted first-degree murder, armed robbery, and possession of a stolen vehicle, leading to a probation violation. The trial court sentenced Osborne to two concurrent life terms for the attempted murder and robbery charges, plus five years for possession of a stolen vehicle, which was to run consecutively to the life terms. Additionally, the court revoked his probation and imposed five-year sentences for each of the ten original offenses, running consecutively to each other and to the life terms. The appellate court identified that the ten five-year sentences constituted an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The court noted that the permitted range for Osborne's sentencing, with a one-cell bump for the probation violation, was 22 years to life. The trial court's reasons for the upward departure were mostly invalid, as they related to the new crimes that violated his probation. Citing Lambert v. State, the court emphasized that reasons related to a violation of probation cannot justify a departure from sentencing guidelines. The state’s argument regarding escalating criminal activity was not applicable since the original offenses were nonviolent property crimes. The appellate court also found the trial court's rationale for public protection invalid due to a lack of supporting reasons beyond the criminal conduct itself. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the decision and remanded the case for correction of the sentence, indicating that the ten five-year sentences for the original offenses should not run consecutively to the life sentences. The court found no merit in other issues raised by Osborne. The judgment was reversed and remanded, with concurrence from the other judges.