Spivey v. StateSpivey v. State
On remand the trial judgе conducted an unscheduled hearing, without the defendant‘s attorney, and resentenced the defendant to fifteen years. That рrocedurally defective sentence was vacated. The hearing from which this appeal is brought was then conducted, and the defendant was again sentenced to fifteen years.
Again the stated reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines to impose a fifteen-year sentence, where a one cell upward departure would be twelve to fifteen months of inсarceration, is that the defendant committed a new offense within a month of being placed on probation.1 The State аrgues correctly that the extent of a departure is not reviewable so long as there is any valid reason for exceеding the guidelines.
This is a man who has just been put on probation and had another offense. Sooner or later a word has to go out on the street to those who are willing to listen that the judiciary is tired of being the fall guy. I am tired as a judge, Ms. Kleinfeld and for anybody else who cares to listen, I am tired of being the fall guy out there as a member of the judiciary. I am tired of people of this world and the rest of the mental midgets out there complaining that the judges are the causе of all this. I just watched that debate on television last night and I was rather disturbed. It was an outrageous thing and the media and everyone else is always making the judiciary become the fall guy.
* * * * * *
The sentence of this Court is that you are to serve 15 years in the state prison bаsed upon the above stated reason [commission of new offense while on probation].
So, take that on appeal. Raise that to the Third District. But the Court follows that it has followed the mandate of the Third DCA.
Although this court has in the past directed the reаssignment of criminal cases on remand, there has been little discussion of general criteria which should govern such actions. Morе often the decision is made on a case-by-case basis. See, e.g., Heath v. State, 450 So.2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (case reassigned on remand where judge expressed strong viеws that would not allow her to comply with terms of plea agreement accepted by predecessor judge). Some guidеlines for this procedure are found, however, in United States v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8 (2d Cir.1977), where the court noted that it may be proper to reassign a case оn remand in certain circumstances, even where there is no actual proof that a judge has a personal bias. In making a determination that the circumstances merited such an action, that court considered:
(1) whether the original judge would reasоnably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the aрpearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gаin in preserving the appearance of fairness.
Robin, 553 F.2d at 10. These guidelines, which have been applied in other jurisdictions, see, e.g., United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 785 F.2d 777 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 580, 93 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986); Bercheny v. Johnson, 633 F.2d 473 (6th Cir.1980); and United States v. Arnett, 628 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir.1979), justify reassignment of this case on remand.
Here thе trial judge has already demonstrated substantial difficulty in putting out of his mind previously expressed views regarding the defendant‘s sentence аfter this court found such views to be erroneous. Since this action is being remanded only for a sentencing hearing, reassignment will not entаil a waste and duplication out of proportion with the appearance of unfairness which would otherwise ocсur if this case were returned to the same trial judge for a third time.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes
The defendant was on probation for burglary, trespass, and two counts of grand theft. The guideline sentence for the defendant, based on the nature of the offenses, prior convictions, and number of counts, is any non-prison sanction. The recommended sentence for violation of the probation by the commission of a new offense is twelve to thirty months of imprisonment.
Two of thе above charges arose from an operation which was set up by police officers to snare car thieves around a flea market. The defendant was apprehended taking the bait — sticking his hand into an automobile to take a wallet left on the dashboard with paper currency protruding and the window open. Compare with Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla. 1985) (entrapment defense available under circumstances where the defendant took paper money protruding from the pocket of a police dеcoy who pretended to be drunk), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985).
Two substantive incidents, purse snatching and fighting with an inmate, along with several technical violations, wеre the basis for the probation revocation. The State elected to prosecute the defendant for violatiоn of probation rather than prosecute him for specific offenses arising out of these incidents. Factors relating to unprosecuted offenses could not have been considered for the purpose of deviating from the guideline sentence.