CHRISTINE JOHNSON, A/K/A CHRISTINE ROZIER, 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.
The appellate court reversed a sentence because the trial court improperly delegated the responsibility of formulating reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines to the state attorney. This practice was previously condemned by the court.
Yes, the trial court erred by delegating the formulation of reasons for departure from sentencing guidelines to the state attorney, as this is a judicial function.
[1] A trial court improperly delegates its judicial function when it assigns to the state attorney the responsibility to formulate reasons for departing from a presumptive se…
[2] The failure to interpose a contemporaneous objection is not fatal to appellate review when a trial judge improperly delegates a statutory judicial function.
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“We have had occasion in Carnegie v. State, 473 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and Gaynor v. State, 479 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), to condemn this practice as the improper delegation of a function committed exclusively to the judiciary.”
Establishes the court's prior condemnation of the practice at issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment beyond the guidelines' recommendation. The trial court assigned the responsibility of formulatin…
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 Presumptive Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Christine Johnson, appealing from an order sentencing her to a term of imprisonment beyond the guidelines’ recommendation, claims error in the trial court's assigning to the state attorney the responsibility to formulate the reasons to be relied upon by it in departing from a presumptive sentence. We agree.
We have had occasion in Carnegie v. State, 473 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and Gaynor v. State, 479 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), to condemn this practice as the improper delegation of a function committed exclusively to the judiciary.
The state asserts that we cannot consider this issue because it was not preserved for review by a contemporaneous objection. The contention is without merit. The failure to interpose a contemporaneous objection is not fatal in the circumstance where a trial judge deputizes another to fulfill a function mandated by statute to be executed by the judiciary. See Parker v. State, 478 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Section 921.001(6), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3.701(d)(ll) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure impose upon the trial court the duty to determine and provide written reasons for departure from the guidelines’ recommended sentence, a requirement contemplating more than the mere approval of reasons conceived by the state attorney. We emphasize that our rejection of the procedure followed in this matter does not bar a trial court prior to sentencing from requesting the state, if enhancement is contemplated, or the defense counsel, if mitigation is warranted, to prepare and tender for its consideration grounds supporting departure from the presumptive sentence. Neither does it foreclose the trial court after announcing at sentencing its reasons for departure from directing the appropriate attorney to prepare an order accurately embodying its announced reasons for departure.
Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s conviction but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.
RYDER, C.J., and SANDERLIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1987)…parture encourages trial judges to make sentencing a thoughtful procedure. State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985). Additionally, the formulation of reasons for departure is “a function committed exclusively to the judiciary.” Johnson v. State, 483 So. 2d 839, 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). That function must be performed by the trial judge and cannot be delegated to others. See id. at 840; Wilson v. State, 485 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 5th DCA 19 Although the trial judge appears to have given Barbera’s sentencing a tho…
-
Bogan v. State, 489 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…rial court’s reasons for departure stated at the sentencing hearing but also the prosecutor’s reasons. The trial court’s acceptance of reasons conceived by the state does not satisfy its duty to determine the reasons for departure. Johnson v. State, 483 So. 2d 839 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). Finally, the trial court erred by departing from the guidelines for invalid rea [*159] sons. Although we have sanctioned a trial court’s reliance upon a “habitual offender” determination, merely noted upon the scoresheet as the r…
-
Simmons v. State, 496 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…reby the state attorney when preparing the written reasons for departure includes not only the reasons announced by the trial court, but also the state attorney’s reasons. Bogan v. State, 489 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). See also Johnson v. State, 483 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we will not consider the additional reasons formulated by the state. The trial court’s first reason for departure was that appellant committed the new offenses while on probation. In imposing a sentence following re…
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
- Bernie I. Parker v. State, 478 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Carnegie v. State, 473 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Gaynor v. State, 479 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Finn v. LEE Cnty., 479 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)