MARK ODEN, WILLIAM RUNYON, AND GARY BOTTO, APPELLANTS,
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.
Three inmates appealed their sentences imposed following guilty pleas to charges arising from a prison riot. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to order more thorough presentence investigation reports and declined to review the denial of stay motions, but vacated the sentences because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering more complete presentence investigation reports. The appellate court did not consider the stay motion issue because guilty plea defendants cannot raise that issue on direct appeal. The trial court committed reversible error by departing from the sentencing guidelines without providing a contemporaneous written statement of reasons at the time of sentencing.
[1] A trial court has discretion to order more complete and thorough presentence investigation reports to inform itself of matters relevant to sentencing.
[2] A defendant who has pleaded guilty may not raise the denial of a motion for stay on direct appeal.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court, however, has a duty to inform itself of matters relevant to sentencing. Ordering a presentence investigation is therefore a matter within the trial court's discretion.”
Establishes that trial courts have discretionary authority to order presentence investigations as part of their duty to gather relevant sentencing information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOden, Runyon, and Botto participated in an inmate riot at Cross City Correctional Institution in January 1983. Following plea negotiations with the St…
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 Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
In this consolidated appeal, Oden, Runyon, and Botto raise three issues. They contend the trial court erred in (1) ordering more complete and thorough presentence investigation reports, (2) denying motions for stay, and (3) departing from the sentencing guidelines. We affirm as to Issue I. We do not consider Issue 2. As to Issue 3, we find the trial court erred and vacate appellants’ sentences.
Appellants were involved in an inmate riot at the Cross City Correctional Institution in January 1983. Following negotiations with the State, they pleaded guilty to attempting to cause a riot, throwing deadly missiles, and burglary. A condition of all three plea bargains was that the sentence imposed not exceed 12 years imprisonment consecutive to the sentence currently being served. The trial court conditionally accepted the pleas pending presentence investigation.
On the day scheduled for sentencing, the prosecutor informed the trial court that he felt the presentence investigations reports did not adequately reflect the defendants’ participation in the riot. Over objections of defense counsel, the trial court deferred sentencing and directed that more complete and thorough presentence investigation reports be provided to the court. Thereafter, appellants filed with the trial court motions for stay pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(a). Defense counsel argued at the hearing on the motions that the motions should be granted in order to allow appellants to seek writs of prohibition with this Court overturning the trial court’s order regarding the presen-tence investigation reports. The motions were denied.
At the subsequent sentencing hearing held on 23 February 1984, appellants affirmatively selected sentencing pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. In each case, the trial court stated it was deviating from the recommended range under the guidelines. There is, however, no written document in the record giving the trial court’s reasons for departing from the guidelines.
Oden was sentenced to a total of ten years in prison. Runyon and Botto were each sentenced to a total of eight years in prison. All sentences were consecutive to those currently being served.
Appellants first argue the trial court erred in ordering more complete and thorough presentence investigation reports. The trial court, however, has a duty to inform itself of matters relevant to sentencing. Ordering a presentence investigation is therefore a matter within the trial court’s discretion. Moody v. State, 418 So. 2d 989 (Fla.1982); Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.710. That discretion was not abused in this instance.
We do not decide whether the trial court erred in denying the motions for stay. Having pleaded guilty, appellants may not raise this issue on direct appeal. See, Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979); Section 924.06(3), Florida Statutes (1983).
It was reversible error for the trial court to depart from the guidelines without providing a contemporaneous written statement of the reasons therefor at the time each sentence was pronounced. Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We therefore vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing. Should the trial court again decide to depart from the guidelines, it should follow the requirements of Jackson.
The sentences are vacated and the cases remanded for resentencing.
ERVIN, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur. ON REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF CONFLICT
MILLS, Judge.
In following Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), on the issue of the need for written reasons for departing from the guidelines, we certify conflict, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi), with Bell v. State, 459 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Brady v. State, 457 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Fleming v. State, 456 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Burke v. State, 456 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Klapp v. State, 456 So. 2d 970, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Smith v. State, 454 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); and Harvey v. State, 450 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
ERVIN, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
REE v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1990)…he trial court’s failure to enter written reasons required the appellate court to vacate the departure sentence and remand for resentencing. Id. at 1055-56. In the companion case of State v. Oden, 478 So. 2d 51, 51 (Fla.1985) (quoting Oden v. State, 463 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)), we approved the First District’s holding that “[i]t was reversible error for the trial court to depart from the guidelines without providing a contemporaneous written statement of the reasons therefor at the time each sen…
-
Vance v. State, 475 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…. . We do not reach this issue in this case, but note a conflict between the district courts of appeal on its resolution. See Harris v. State, 465 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Schmidt v. State, 468 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Odea v. State, 463 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); contra, Boehmer v. State, 472 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hernandez v. State, 465 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State v. Overton, 464 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985); Bu…
-
REE v. State, 512 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ineating the reasons for the departure.” For one person or thing to be accompanied by other persons or things requires that the former and the latter occupy substantially the same or adjacent space at approximately the same time. In Oden v. State, 463 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the court, in expressing this necessary relationship between sentencing and the publication of written reasons for departure, stated: “It was reversible error for the trial court to depart from the guidelines without provid…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Jackson v. State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Smith v. State, 454 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Harvey v. State, 450 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Brady v. State, 457 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Burke v. State, 456 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Fleming v. State, 456 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Klapp v. State, 456 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Moody v. State, 418 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1982)