THOMAS MARTIRE, 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.
Thomas Martire appealed his sentences imposed by the trial court, which departed from Florida's sentencing guidelines without written justification. The appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing, finding multiple sentencing errors including failure to provide written reasons for departure, improper application of probation revocation guidelines, and an illegal split sentence combining incarceration and probation.
The trial court committed multiple sentencing errors: (1) it failed to provide written reasons for departing from the recommended nonstate prison sanction guideline; (2) it improperly applied probation revocation guidelines without written reasons when probation was never revoked; (3) it imposed an illegal split sentence combining incarceration exceeding the maximum guideline range with probation; and (4) it attempted to impose probation and incarceration simultaneously, which is prohibited.
[1] A trial court must provide written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines.
[2] A trial court may not increase a recommended sentence by one cell under Rule 3.701(d)(14) without setting forth written reasons for the departure.
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“Thus appellant's sentence imposed in case no. 84-6371 was a departure from the recommended range of any nonstate prison sanction. Consequently, the trial court erred in failing to provide written reasons for departure.”
Establishes the core error that the trial court departed from guidelines without written justification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's guidelines scoresheet indicated a recommended sentence of 'any nonstate prison sanction.' However, the trial court sentenced appellant to …
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 Written Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines. Based on our analysis, we reverse his sentences and remand for resentencing.
First, appellant’s prepared guidelines scoresheet indicated a total point score corresponding to a recommended guidelines sentence of “any nonstate prison sanction.” At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to thirty months incarceration in case no. 84-6371, continued appellant’s five-year probationary term in case no. 82-7548, modified ap pellant’s probationary terms in cases no. 82-11779 and 82-12752 by increasing those terms from five to fifteen years, and ordered that all sentences be served concurrently.
Thus appellant’s sentence imposed in case no. 84-6371 was a departure from the recommended range of any nonstate prison sanction.
Consequently, the trial court erred in failing to provide written reasons for departure. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11), (12); State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985); Mestas v. State, 484 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) [11 FLW 315].
Second, the record demonstrates that appellant’s probation was never revoked.
Therefore, the trial court erred in applying Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14) to increase appellant’s recommended sentence one cell without setting forth, in a separate document, written reasons for such departure. Jackson; Fernquist v. State, 480 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Third, the trial court’s sanction (incarceration in one case combined with probation in the other cases) is, absent valid written reasons therefor, an illegal split sentence under the guidelines. Although the total time of appellant’s incarceration and probation does not “exceed the term provided by general law,” the incarcerative portion, which exceeds appellant’s maximum sentencing guidelines range, is violative of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(12). See Committee Note to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12); Bell v. State, 479 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); O’Brien v. State, 478 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Fourth, appellant cannot be sentenced to probation and incarceration simultaneously. Cox v. State, 468 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Brudie v. State, 467 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Accordingly, the sentences imposed are reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to resentence appellant in accordance with the views we have expressed.
SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martire v. State, 528 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…sed upon him after remand following this court’s reversal of the sentences originally imposed for these offenses on September 6, 1984. The sentences originally imposed and our reasons for disapproval are set forth in our opinion in Martire v. State, 486 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (Martire I). The offenses involved here consist of three offenses committed by the appellant in 1982 and another offense committed in 1984. With respect to the 1982 offenses, the appellant was first given five years probation wit…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- O'Brien v. State, 478 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- COX v. State, 468 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Brudie v. State, 467 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Bell v. State, 479 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Mestas v. State, 484 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Fernquist v. State, 480 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)