Skip navigation.
Home | About Us | Contact Us
Rick Scott, Governor
Florida Department of Corrections, Secretary Michael D. Crews

Florida Department of Corrections
Michael D. Crews, Secretary

Part III: Comparative Description

NOTES: This section examines the sentencing parameters point values, as follows:

  • The Criminal Punishment Code allows for a non-state prison sanction for offenders scoring 44.0 or less total points.

  • The Code mandates state prison as the sanction, unless the sentence is mitigated, for all those offenders whose total points exceed 44.0.

This means that only those offenders scoring 44 or fewer points may receive a non-state prison sanction under the Code. All others must receive a state prison sanction, absent downward departure from this structure.

Florida Statute 921.0026 allows for circumstances or factors that reasonably justify the downward departure of Guidelines/Code scoresheet.

In addition, on January 24, 2002 the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in Jones v. State that Section 948.01(3) F.S. (supp. 1998), which allows for the sanction of drug offender probation in the case of a chronic substance abuser, provides an alternative sentencing scheme for drug offenders that is outside the Code. It was ruled that the Trial Court had the discretion to sentence the defendant to drug offender probation even though the Code mandated prison time.

Actual sanctions imposed, including state prison, community control, probation, county jail/time served, and other sanctions are presented and compared to the categories listed above.

FINDINGS:

  • Across the state, 21.9% of offenders were sentenced to state prison as the most severe sanction in FY2012-2013. An additional 23.6% were sentenced to incarceration in county jail, or to time already served in jail. Five percent (5.6%) were sentenced to community control, and almost half to probation (48.5%), including drug offender probation, administrative probation, and regular probation.  Less than one percent (0.5%) of offenders were sentenced to “other” sanctions. For sentencing dates in FY2011-2012, 21.4% of offenders were sentenced to state prison and 23.7% were sentenced to county jail or time served. Less than six percent (5.4%) were sentenced to community control, and 48.9% to probation.  Less than one percent (0.6%) of the offenders were sentenced to “other” sanctions (Table 1).

  • Almost three-quarters of the 72,003 Code scoresheets with sentence date in FY2012-2013 examined (51,886 scoresheets or 72.1%) scored 44 points or fewer (Table 1). These scoresheets represent sentencing events where the judge has the discretion to sentence the offender to either a non-state prison sanction or a state prison sanction. If the judge chose to sentence the offender to state prison, the judge had the discretion to sentence the offender up to the statutory maximum of the law. For scoresheets with sentence dates in FY2011-2012, there were 53,879 (72.4%) offenders scoring 44 points or fewer (Table 1).

  • For FY2012-2013, of the offenders scoring in the recommended state prison category, 59.6% were sentenced to state prison, with another 10.6% sentenced to county jail or time served. Of those scoring fewer than 44 points, 7.2% were sentenced to state prison, and 28.6% to county jail/time served. For FY2011-2012, 58.4% of the offenders scoring above 44 points were sentenced to state prison and another 11.0% of these offenders were sentenced to county jail or time served. Of those scoring fewer than 44 points, 7.2% were sentenced to state prison, and 28.5% to county jail/time served. (Table 1).

  • Scoresheets with a state prison sanction decreased slightly from 21.4% in FY2011-2012 to 21.9% in FY2012-2013. County jail sanctions increased from 23.7% in FY2011-2012 to 23.6% in FY2012-2013. Community Control sanction rates increased slightly from 5.4% in FY2011-2012 to 5.6%  in FY2012-2013 (Table 1).

  • Statewide, 76.2% of offenders (11,999 out of 15,743) receiving a prison sanction scored out to a prison sanction. Table 2 presents the scoring distribution of offenders under the Code for FY2011-2012 and FY2012-2013  by circuit and sanction imposed. In FY2012-2013, Circuit 11 (Miami) had the highest percentage (95.7%) of prison sanctioned scoresheets with more than 44 points while Circuit 12 (Sarasota) had the lowest (51.5%).

  • Incarceration rates vary greatly by county and circuit. Jail sanctions also vary greatly depending on the number of beds available and judicial inclination to use the jail sanction. Table 3 represents the distribution of sanction imposed by circuit and county. Although variance in sentencing does exist at the circuit and county level based on the judge involved, variability in the statistics presented in this table could also be as a result of differences in the type of offenders being sentenced around the state. There are also very small numbers of scoresheets for some of the counties listed in this table. The incarceration rates for counties with less than 100 scoresheets could possibly be misleading (Table 3).

  • In both FY2011-2012 and FY2012-2013 the majority of violent offenders received a state prison sanction (Table 4).

  • As would be expected, scoresheets with the highest offense severity levels received a state prison sanction, those with the lowest received probation (Table 5).

  • Consistently in FY2011-2012 and FY2012-2013, for offenders sentenced to state prison, the majority with offense severity levels of 1 through 5 received less than two years and those with offense level 10 received more than ten years (Table 6).

  • From FY2011-2012 to FY2012-2013 the percentage of scoresheets with no prior record decreased, prior misdemeanors increased slightly, and with four to six or more felonies increased or decreased by no more than a tenth (Table 7).

  • From FY2011-2012 to FY2012-2013 the percentage of scoresheets with no additional offenses decreased slightly and those with misdemeanors increased slightly. The percentage with four or more felonies remained relatively constant (Table 8).

Within the Criminal Punishment Code policy, a true mitigation occurs when an offender scores more than 44 total points and either receives a non-state prison sanction (except drug offender probation) or a state prison sentence length below the 25% permissible discretion. Sanction mitigation occurs when an offender scores more than 44 total points, but receives a non-state prison sanction (except drug offender probation).

  • The true mitigation rate for offenders who scored more than 44 total points is 59.6% for FY2011-2012  and 57.9% for FY2012-2013. The sanction mitigation rate (cases that scored to state prison but received a non-state prison sanction) was 40.6% for FY2011-2012 and 39.2% for FY2012-2013 (Table 11).

  • For the offenders that received a mitigated prison sentence length, the average reduction in sentence was 23.2 months during FY2011-2012 and 25.0 months during FY2012-2013 (Table 11).

Departure, as defined here, is not a comment on the legality of the sentence. There are many reasons for departure, which are recognized as legitimate under F. S. 921.0026. In addition, other Statutes, such as F. S. 948.034, establish special conditions allowing for departures from recommended sentences. Database limitations do not allow us to isolate all these reasons for departure.

Table 1 Recommended Sanction Category by Sanction Imposed

Sanction Imposed Recommended Sanction Category
FY 2011-2012 Sentence Dates1 FY 2012-2013 Sentence Dates2
44.0
Points or
Less
More than
44.0
Points
Total 44.0
Points or
Less
More than
44.0
Points
Total
State Prison 3,891 12,009 15,900 3,744 11,999 15,743
7.2% 58.4% 21.4% 7.2% 59.6% 21.9%
Community Control 2,591 1,463 4,054 2,582 1,425 4,007
4.8% 7.1% 5.4% 5.0% 7.1% 5.6%
Probation 31,646 4,725 36,371 30,396 4,490 34,886
58.7% 23.0% 48.9% 58.6% 22.3% 48.5%
County Jail 15,354 2,269 17,623 14,855 2,136 16,991
28.5% 11.0% 23.7% 28.6% 10.6% 23.6%
Other 397 84 481 309 67 376
0.7% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5%
Total 53,879 20,550 74,429 51,886 20,117 72,003
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1 Offense dates on or after October 1, 2010.
2 Offense dates on or after October 1, 2011.

Figure 1 Sanction Imposed for Offenders Scoring in the State Prison Sanction Category*

For FY 11-12 and FY 12-13, State Prison 58.4% and 59.6%, Community Control 7.1% and 7.1%, Probation 23.0% and 22.3%, County Jail 11.0% and 10.6%, Other 0.4% and 0.3%.
*Total points greater than 44.