MICHAEL CARNEGIE, 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.
Michael Carnegie appeals his convictions for battery and burglary of a dwelling. The court affirms the battery conviction and sentence but reverses and remands the burglary conviction for resentencing because the trial court improperly delegated its responsibility to provide reasons for guideline departure to the state attorney's office.
The trial court improperly delegated its exclusive responsibility to provide reasons for guideline departure to the state attorney's office. A court must articulate its own reasons for departure, either orally (transcribed into the record) or in writing at the time of sentencing, not by incorporating reasons later submitted by the prosecution.
[1] A trial court improperly delegates its responsibility to articulate reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines when it directs the state to prepare and submit writt…
[2] A trial court's oral articulation of reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines, subsequently transcribed and made part of the record, is sufficient to meet procedu…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We find that the trial court improperly delegated to the state attorney's office a responsibility which belongs exclusively to the court.”
Establishes the core holding that courts cannot delegate the responsibility to articulate reasons for sentencing departure to prosecutors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarnegie was convicted of battery and burglary of a dwelling. For the burglary charge, the trial court departed from the sentencing guidelines' recomm…
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 Delegation Of Judicial Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Michael Carnegie, appeals from the judgments and sentences entered against him on charges of battery and burglary of a dwelling. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellant has raised several points on appeal, but we find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines on the charge of burglary of a dwelling.
When sentencing appellant on the burglary charge, the court departed from the guideline recommended range of twelve to thirty months imprisonment and sentenced appellant to serve fifteen years in prison. The court did not give any reasons for its departure, but directed the state to prepare and submit written reasons for departure. The court stated that these reasons, when submitted, would be incorporated into the final judgment and sentence. The score-sheet used by the court in sentencing does not set forth any reasons for departure, but a sheet attached to the scoresheet is entitled “Submitted Reasons For Guideline Departure.” Apparently, this document was submitted by the state in compliance with the court’s order. It is the only statement of reasons for departure in the record.
We find that the trial court improperly delegated to the state attorney’s office a responsibility which belongs exclusively to the court. See McClure v. State, 371 So. 2d 196 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Although oral reasons for departure, subsequently transcribed and made part of the record, are sufficient to meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11), see Smith v. State, 454 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the court in this case did not articulate any reasons for departure. A mere statement by the trial court that it intends to incorporate into the judgment and sentence written reasons for departure to be submitted by the state at a later date, falls far short of meeting the requirements set forth in section 921.001(6), Florida Statutes (1983), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll).
We, accordingly, reverse and remand for resentencing on the charge of burglary of a dwelling. We affirm the judgments in connection with both of the charges together with the sentence imposed on the battery charge.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
RYDER, C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leopard v. State, 491 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…to reasons given by the prosecutor in a letter to the judge two days before the sentencing hearing, the trial judge did not properly discharge his responsibility for articulating clear and convincing reasons for departure, citing Carnegie v. State, 473 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) and Boynton v. State, 473 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The fact that the court employed language very similar to that used in the assistant state attorney’s letter does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the court delegat…
-
J.M. v. State, 677 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…, 483 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The sentencing decision is ultimately that of the court, not the probation officer, and cannot properly be delegated to the probation officer. See Montgomery v. State, 489 So. 2d at 1226; Carnegie v. State, 473 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Indeed, different caseworkers might come to different conclusions in evaluating the same case. The final decision must be that of Ae sentencing judge.…
-
Montgomery v. State, 489 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…reasons in reverse order, reason number 5 is invalid. See Tompkins v. State, 483 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The determination of whether or not to depart from a recommended guideline sentence belongs exclusively to the court. Carnegie v. State, 473 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Reason number 4 is tantamount to the statement that there is no legal or moral justification for the commission of the offense, and that has been held to be an insufficient reason for departure. Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1360 (…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 454 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- McCLURE v. State, 371 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)