CHARLES BURKE, JR., 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 addressed whether a trial court must provide a written statement of reasons when departing from sentencing guidelines, and whether juvenile dispositions more than three years old can support such a departure. The Court held that written statements are mandatory and that juvenile dispositions equivalent to adult convictions may support departures regardless of age.
A written statement delineating reasons for departure from sentencing guidelines is mandatory and oral dictation into the record does not satisfy this requirement. Juvenile dispositions that are the equivalent of adult convictions may support a deviation from guidelines even if the conduct occurred more than three years ago, but departures cannot be based on prior arrests lacking a finding of guilt.
[1] A departure sentence from sentencing guidelines must be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for departure.
[2] Dictating reasons for departure into the record does not satisfy the requirement for a written statement of reasons.
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“a departure sentence must be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for departure”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for written statements in guideline departures, citing State v. Jackson
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Burke, Jr. was sentenced by a trial court that departed from the sentencing guidelines. The trial court dictated its reasons for departure ora…
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 Juvenile Delinquency Disposition cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
We have for review Burke v. State, 456 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), which is certified to us as being in conflict with Harvey v. State, 450 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and quash the decision of the district court.
We have before us a sentencing guideline case in which the trial court departed from the guidelines without providing a written statement delineating the reasons for the departure. Instead, the trial court dictated its reasons for departure into the record.
In State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985), we held that a departure sentence must be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for departure. (Emphasis supplied.) See Fla.R. Crim.Pro. 3.701(d)(ll); Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985). Therefore, the dictation of reasons for departure into the record does not meet the explicit requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll).
The trial court’s reasons for departure are unclear due to the fact that they were verbally articulated. We will assume, as did the Fifth District Court of Appeal, that the trial court deviated from the guidelines on the basis of Burke’s prior juvenile record, part of which includes dispositions which are more than three years old.
Burke argues that the trial court is precluded from departing from the guidelines on the basis of juvenile dispositions which are more than three years old because such juvenile dispositions cannot be used in the initial computation of the recommended sentence. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(5)(c).
We have previously addressed this issue in Weems v. State, 469 So. 2d 128 (Fla.1985). In Weems, we held that juvenile dispositions that are the equivalent of convictions had the defendant been an adult when they were committed, may support a deviation from the guidelines despite the fact that the act occurred more than three years ago. We further held that a judge cannot deviate from the guidelines on the basis of prior arrests when there has been no finding of guilt. Id. at 130.
Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court and direct the district court to remand to the trial court for sentencing consistent with our decision.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Puffinberger v. State, 581 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1991)…rdered. SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, BARKETT, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur. . Weems v. State, 469 So. 2d 128 (Fla.1985). . To the extent it can be read to be inconsistent with this decision, we recede from our decision in Burke v. State, 483 So. 2d 404, 405 (Fla.1985), in which we stated simply that juvenile dispositions that are the equivalent of adult convictions may support a deviation from the guidelines. Cf. Tillman v. State, 525 So. 2d 862, 864 (Fla.1988) (holding extensive juvenile record v…
-
Pease v. State, 712 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1997)…with sentencing. [*378] It was originally thought by some courts that the reason for departure could be announced orally at sentencing. Brady v. State, 457 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Burke v. State, 456 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), quashed, 483 So. 2d 404 (Fla.1985). However, _ writing for a unanimous court on the issue in State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985), Justice Overton pointed out that both the legislature and this Court by statute and rule had clearly mandated written departure orders…
-
Hall v. State, 503 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…hat is, the risk of harm to the customers and other employees. However, the second articulated reason is not a valid basis for deviation. A departure sentence may not be based on factors relating to prior arrests without conviction. Burke v. State, 483 So. 2d 404 (Fla.1985); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11). It follows that evidence of a crime for which a person might be arrested, but for which he has not been convicted (unrelated to the [*1373] crime for which defendant is being sentenced), is not a valid ground…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Weems v. State, 469 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1985)
- Harvey v. State, 450 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Burke v. State, 456 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)