RANDY VON CARTER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court remanded a sentencing case to the district court for reconsideration under the standard established in State v. Young, which requires reversal and resentencing when a departure sentence relies on both permissible and impermissible reasons unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the impermissible reasons did not affect the sentence.
When a departure sentence is grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons, the sentence must be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the impermissible reason(s) would not have affected the departure sentence.
[1] When a sentencing court departs from guidelines based on both permissible and impermissible reasons, reversal and resentencing are required unless the state proves beyond…
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 intelligenceVon Carter was sentenced by a trial court with a departure from the sentencing guidelines based on reasons that included at least one impermissible re…
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 Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition to review Von Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), in which the district court reversed a trial court sentencing judgment for an improper departure from the sentencing guidelines and certified the following question as a matter of great public importance:
When an appellate court finds that a sentencing court relied upon a reason or reasons that are impermissible under [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 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[?]
Id. at 280. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently answered the question in State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1985):
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.
At 161. See also Brinson v. State, 476 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1985); State v. Carney, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1985); Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the district court for reconsideration.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanders v. State, 510 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1987)…nce so as to be equivalent to that which Bateman received. We recognize that upward departures cannot be justified solely in order to match the sentence of a codefendant. Von Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA), remanded on other grounds, 478 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1985); Thomas v. State, 461 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We conclude, however, that this can be a valid basis for downward departure, although we caution that each case must be decided entirely on its own facts and circumstances. We reject…
-
Pursell v. State, 483 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…tity involved as a reason for departure. The state has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of impermissible reasons would not have affected the departure sentence, therefore, we reverse and remand for resentencing. Carter v. State, 478 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1985). Reversed and remanded with instructions. GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.…
-
Byrd v. State, 516 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…convincing reasons for an upward departure from the guidelines sentences. But cf. Von Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA) (fact that victim was 86-year-old female who lived alone was valid reason for departure), remanded on other grounds, 478 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1985). In our view, there must be some additional element to justify departure such as the fact that the defendant stood in a position of trust with the victim, Stewart v. State, 489 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), or that the degree of suffe…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- State v. Carney, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Enmund, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1985)
- von Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Brinson v. State, 476 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1985)