Brian M. Rankin v. State of Florida
174 So. 3d 1092
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Rankin was charged with burglary of an occupied dwelling and possession of burglary tools; he was ultimately convicted of possession of burglary tools (third-degree felony) and the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor criminal trespass.
- The State sought habitual felony offender sentencing; a pre-sentence investigation was conducted and sentencing set for a later date.
- At sentencing, the State introduced Rankin’s priors and victims described the impact of his actions; Rankin testified about remorse and a desire to rehabilitate.
- Defense sought downward departure, arguing rehabilitation; counsel noted a miscalculated scoresheet but did not propose a specific statutory departure ground.
- The trial court sentenced Rankin as an habitual offender to four years; it stated Rankin showed no remorse and did not take responsibility.
- Rankin challenged (1) the court’s stated lack of remorse as improper consideration and (2) a seven-point error on the scoresheet; the issue raised on appeal was fundamental error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether lack of remorse used in sentencing was fundamental error | Rankin | Rankin | No fundamental error; remorse could be considered amid rehabilitation evidence |
| whether court erred by considering lack of remorse when downward departure was sought | Rankin argued improper use of remorse | State | Remorse can be considered when defendant injects rehabilitation; not reversible error here |
| whether scoresheet error affects validity since Rankin was habitual offender | Rankin | State | Scoresheet error deemed harmless because habitual-offender sentence renders scoresheet legally irrelevant |
| whether miscalculated scoresheet requires resentencing | Rankin | State | No resentencing required; habitual offender status controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Holton v. State, 573 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1990) (prohibition on using protestations of innocence to impose punishment)
- Peters v. State, 128 So.3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (remorse may be considered in mitigation when rehabilitation is argued)
- Brown v. State, 27 So.3d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (remorse generally not a basis to increase punishment; improper to rely on lack of remorse)
- Davis v. State, 149 So.3d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (remorse improper when defendant did not inject rehabilitation; distinguished)
- Cooper v. State, 902 So.2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (guidelines scoresheet irrelevance in habitual-offender sentencing)
- State v. Knox, 990 So.2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (downward departure analysis requires valid legal basis and determination of best option)
- Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 1999) (two-step process for downward departure; need valid reasons supported by facts)
- State v. Subido, 925 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (two-step inquiry for downward departure; if no basis, no departure)
- LaFleur v. State, 812 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (habitual offender sentencing independent of the Criminal Punishment Code)