STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
BRIAN ANTHONY YOUNG, RESPONDENT
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.
When an appellate court finds a sentencing court relied on impermissible reasons for departure, it must remand for resentencing unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt the impermissible reasons did not affect the sentence.
The appellate court reviewed a departure sentence that was based on both permissible and impermissible reasons. The appellate court was unable to dete…
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 Appellate Review Of Sentencing Departures cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
This cause is before us based on a certified question of great public importance:
WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASONS THAT ARE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FLA.R.CR.P. 3.701 IN MAKING ITS DECISION TO DEPART FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, SHOULD THE APPELLATE COURT EXAMINE THE OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY. DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENCING.
Young v. State, 455 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), we recently addressed the broad question of appellate review of departures from sentencing guidelines. Our discussion there subsumes the specific question here. When a departure sentence is grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons, the sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the impermissible reason(s) would not have affected the departure sentence.
It is clear that the district court here was unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the impermissible reasons did not affect the departure sentence. We approve the decision reversing the sentence and remanding the case for resentencing.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDonald and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (41 total)
-
Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1986)…URT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENCING. Id. at 632. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The certified question has been answered in State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1985). To limit ourselves to simply answering the certified question, however, would leave [*1309] the impression that the remaining reasons deemed permissible by the district court were clear and convincing reasons for departure. To eliminate…
-
State v. Carney, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1985)…ung v. State, 455 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We addressed the broad question of appellate review of departures from sentencing guidelines in Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), and answered the certified question in State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1985). Although the district court did not have the benefit of these decisions, its reasoning and conclusion largely parallel our own: “When a departure sentence is grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons, the sentence should be…1 / 2
-
Hankey v. State, 485 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1986)…ort of departure. Therefore, upon remand, the sentence should be reversed unless the [*829] state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the impermissible reasons would not have affected the departure sentence. State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1985). The trial court failed to state its reasons in support of departure in writing. Therefore, we note that if the trial court decides to depart on remand, it must state its reasons for doing so in writing. Fla.R.Crim. Pro. 3.701(d)(ll). A…
Previewing 3 of 41 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Young v. State, 455 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)