Johnson v. StateJohnson v. State
Charles Johnson appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentences for two counts of kidnapping. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On March 13, 1992, Johnson entered the bedroom of his girlfriend, Katrina Swasey, in the home of her parents. Katrina was asleep at the time with their one-year-old child, Tinequa. Although Johnson and Katrina never married and paternity was never formally adjudicated, all parties concede that Johnson is Tinequa‘s biological father. Johnson apparently was upset that Katrina had moved out of his house and had taken Tinequa with her. Johnson forced Tinequa and Katrina to leave with him.
Johnson was arrested and charged with, among other things, one count of kidnapping Katrina and one count of kidnapping Tinequa. At trial, Johnson argued that he could not be found guilty of kidnapping Tinequa as he was her biological parent.
The jury found Johnson guilty of the kidnapping charges. The original sentencing guidelines computed by the state showed a recommended range of 9 to 12 years per count and a permitted range of 7 to 17 years per count. The trial court found no reason to depart and sentenced Johnson to two concurrent 15-year sentences. Thereafter, the state determined that it had erred in computing the guidelines and that the actual permitted sentencing range was between 5 1/2 years and 12 years per count. The trial court then found that there was, in fact, reason to depart and imposed the same 15-year concurrent sentences. Johnson appeals.
We reverse Johnson‘s conviction for kidnapping Tinequa because, as her natural
We agree with the fifth district‘s reasoning as expressed in Badalich and hold that a biological parent cannot be convicted of kidnapping his own child under
As to the sentencing issues, the trial court properly departed from the corrected scoresheet‘s permitted range of 5 1/2 years to 12 years and imposed a 15-year sentence for the kidnapping of Katrina. See Roberts v. State, 547 So.2d 129, 131 (Fla. 1989) (“[I]t is proper for the judge to reconsider whether a departure from the guidelines is appropriate when the corrected guidelines scoresheet is before him on remand.“) Furthermore, the trial court entered contemporaneous written findings that specifically set forth the reasons for departure. We find these reasons valid and sufficient to support the departure. See Keys v. State, 500 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1986) (trial court properly departed from the sentencing guidelines upon a showing of defendant‘s escalating pattern of violent conduct).
In sum, we reverse the judgment of conviction for kidnapping Tinequa. We affirm the judgment of conviction for kidnapping Katrina, and the resulting sentence.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.