LEONARD J. RAMSEY, 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.
Florida appellate court vacated defendant's sentence imposed outside sentencing guidelines because trial court failed to provide written or oral reasons for the departure as required by rule.
A sentence departing from sentencing guidelines must be accompanied by written reasons or oral statements at sentencing explaining the departure.
[1] A sentence departing from sentencing guidelines requires either a written statement or oral explanation at sentencing delineating the reasons for departure, and failure t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeonard Ramsey was sentenced by the trial court outside the recommended sentencing guidelines without any written statement or oral explanation of the…
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 Departure From Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, JAMES R., Associate Judge.
The appellant, Leonard J. Ramsey, seeks reversal of the sentence imposed by the trial court which departed from the sentencing guidelines. Fla.Rule Crim.P. 3.701. On appeal Ramsey argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him outside the recommended guidelines because the court gave no reasons at sentencing or with the judgment and sentence to justify the departure. We agree. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll) provides that any sentence outside the guidelines must be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for departure. Although this court recognizes that reasons for departure stated in the transcript may satisfy this requirement, see Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), in this case no reasons were given by the lower court in a written statement or orally at the sentencing hearing.
We note that the failure of the appellant’s counsel to contemporaneously object to the sentence imposed does not vitiate the appellant’s right to appeal. Rhoden v. State, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984).
Accordingly, we vacate the appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing to the presumptive sentence or to a departure sentence imposed in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.
RYDER, C.J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1986)…’s failure to contemporaneously object upon imposition of a sentence does not preclude appellate review of sentencing errors. Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Ramsey v. State, 462 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Tucker v. State, 464 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).” Whitfield, 471 So. 2d at 634. However, the district court was apparently troubled, and rightly so, by the implications of a rule of law which treats failure to advise the sente…
-
Whitfield v. State, 471 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…’s failure to contemporaneously object upon imposition of a sentence does not preclude appellate review of sentencing errors. Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Ramsey v. State, 462 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Tucker v. State, 464 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We note, however, that two recent decisions of the supreme court might be construed as an attempt by that court to limit [*635] the effect of Rhoden. Walker v. State, 462 So. 2…
-
Bradley v. State, 480 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…on appeal, even in the absence of a contemporaneous objection, if the errors are apparent and determinable from the record on appeal. See State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984); Hart v. State, 464 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Ramsey v. State, 462 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In the case before us, the scoring inaccuracies are readily determinable from the record. See Parker v. State, 478 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) [10 FLW 1859]; Whitfield v. Sta…
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
- State v. Learnhart Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1984)
- Keithie's Roofing Co. Inc. v. LEE Parks Apts., Inc., 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Benny Lee Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)