State v. Thompkins, 113 So. 3d 95

Criminal Punishment Code requires a scoresheet and imposes at least the minimum guideline sentence unless a valid departure exists.
Thompkins burglarized a dwelling and committed criminal mischief at the home of his former girlfriend’s mother; he entered via a doggie door after being uninvited.
The sentencing scoresheet yielded a guideline range of 36.15 months to 15 years; the State argued for a 5-year minimum, but the court imposed community control for 12 months followed by 2 years of probation.
The trial court relied on both a statutory ground under section 921.0026(2)(j) and several non-statutory grounds (victim’s desire for involvement, potential harm avoided, and lack of redeeming value) to depart below the minimum.
The State appealed, arguing the departure violated the guidelines; the appellate court analyzed whether the statutory ground and non-statutory grounds were supported by competent substantial evidence.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding the statutory ground was not supported and the non-statutory grounds were invalid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 921.0026(2)(j) is supported by competent evidence	State contends statutory ground satisfied	Thompkins contends grounds are not valid	Statutory ground not supported
Whether the non-statutory grounds are valid bases for departure	State argues grounds justified departure	Thompkins argues grounds acceptable	No non-statutory grounds valid
Whether the crimes were committed in an unsophisticated manner and were an isolated incident	State alleges unsophisticated/isolated elements supported	Thompkins contends elements met	Not satisfied; crimes deemed not unsophisticated/isolated
Whether the court may rely on 'no redeeming value' as a non-statutory ground	State argues legitimate policy consideration	Thompkins argues permissible mitigation	Invalid non-statutory ground
What is the proper disposition given none grounds are valid	State seeks affirmance of departure	Thompkins seeks resentencing within guidelines	Reversed and remanded for resentencing

Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065 (Fla.1999) (valid grounds and factual support required for departure)
State v. Henderson, 108 So.3d 1137 (Fla.5th DCA 2013) (non-statutory grounds must be competent evidence and not prohibited)
State v. Stephenson, 973 So.2d 1259 (Fla.5th DCA 2008) (limits on non-statutory departure grounds)
State v. Leverett, 44 So.3d 634 (Fla.5th DCA 2010) (isolated incidents analysis for departure)
State v. Tice, 898 So.2d 268 (Fla.5th DCA 2005) (harm not escalated as sole basis for departure)
Deleon, 867 So.2d 636 (Fla.5th DCA 2004) (drug/peddling context for departure considerations)
Ayers, 901 So.2d 942 (Fla.2d DCA 2005) (limits on isolated-incident rationale)
Chestnut, 718 So.2d 812 (Fla.5th DCA 1998) (rehabilitation as a secondary sentencing goal)
Williams v. State, 492 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1986) (court discretion within guideline range)
Whiteside, 56 So.3d 799 (Fla.2d DCA 2011) (discretionary deviations from guidelines not justified by mere disagreement with policy)
Subido, 925 So.2d 1052 (Fla.5th DCA 2006) (no-more-harm standard for departure)
Matthews, 891 So.2d 479 (Fla.2004) (narrow sentencing range; judge within guideline discretion)
Knox, 990 So.2d 665 (Fla.5th DCA 2008) (consistency with legislative sentencing policies)
McKnight, 85 So.3d 995 (Fla.5th DCA 2010) (prior record guiding punishment level)
Hall, 47 So.3d 361 (Fla.2d DCA 2010) (secondary rehabilitation consideration)