Lippman v. State

Appellant challenges his sentence as an improper departure from the sentencing guidelines. We affirm.

The trial court in its order wrote “continuing course of conduct” as its reason for departure. This reason has been held invalid without the additional factor of escalation in criminal activity. See Barfield v. State, 594 So.2d 259 (Fla.1992); Smith v. State, 579 So.2d 75 (Fla.1991). In pronouncing the sentence, however, it is apparent from the transcript that the judge was departing based on an escalating course or pattern of criminal activity. This intention is articulated in the judge's…