ROY RUTLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial judge must articulate written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines when a defendant elects to be sentenced under them.
Appellant pled guilty to violating probation and elected to be sentenced under the guidelines. He fell into the lowest recommended range, but the judg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This is another sentencing case involving a departure from the sentencing guidelines. In In re Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines), 439 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1983), the supreme court provided that “[t]he sentencing guidelines adopted herein will be effective for all applicable offenses committed after 12:01 a.m., October 1, 1983, and, if affirmatively selected by the defendant, to sentences imposed after that date for applicable crimes occurring prior thereto.”
In 1980, appellant pled guilty to grand theft and was placed on probation. On November 10,1983, appellant pled guilty to violating his probation and filed a written election to be sentenced under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701, the sentencing guidelines. Under those guidelines (Form 3.988(f), Category 6), appellant fell into the lowest recommended range: any non-state prison sanction. At sentencing the trial judge sentenced appellant to a two year term of imprisonment stating no reason other than that the guidelines were inapplicable.
By virtue of appellant’s election the sentencing guidelines were applicable. See Duggar v. State, 446 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In sentencing appellant the trial judge departed from the presumptive sentence under the guidelines without articulating in writing his reasons for deviating as required by Rule 3.701 b6. and dll.
We have recently held that, in the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion and when articulated in writing as required by the rules, a violation of probation may serve as a clear and convincing reason for departure from a guideline sentence. See Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
We vacate the sentence and remand for sentencing to the presumptive sentence or to a departure sentence imposed in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…1984); Harrington v. State, 455 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Knight v. State, 455 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); McGrath v. State, 454 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Hernandez v. State, 456 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ratlin v. State, 455 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Multiple score sheets are impermissible Vileta v. State, 454 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Written statement not required if reasons for departure transcribed Harvey v. State, 450 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Brady v. S…1 / 2
-
Boehmer v. State, 472 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…parture from the sentencing guidelines does not require a written statement if a sufficient reason for that departure is stated orally at the sentencing hearing and transcribed. See Burke v. State, 456 S.2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Rutlin v. State, 455 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Brady v. State, 457 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Klapp v. State, 456 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). But see Boynton v. State, 473 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Jackson v.…
-
Kimble v. State, 458 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…ose the recommended guideline sentence and did not state in writing reasons for imposing a departure sentence. Because of appellant’s election the guidelines were applicable. See Carroll v. State, 454 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Rutlin v. State, 455 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Mack v. State, 458 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We have recently held that as to sentence imposed before July 1, 1984,2 in the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion and when articulated in writing as required by the rul…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Rules of Criminal Procedure (sentencing Guidelines), 439 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1983)
- Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Duggar v. State, 446 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)