MIGUEL CHENARD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines without a written statement of reasons violates Florida law and requires resentencing, even though oral explanation was given at sentencing.
A written statement articulating reasons for departure from sentencing guidelines is required under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(b)(6), (d)(11), and oral statements alone are insufficient.
[1] A written statement articulating the reasons for departure from sentencing guidelines is required under Fla.R.Crim.P. …
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 intelligenceChenard received two criminal sentences totaling ten years imprisonment, a seven-year departure from the sentencing guidelines' recommended three-year…
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 Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from two criminal sentences imposed below, totalling ten years imprisonment, which constitute a departure from the sentencing guidelines’ recommended sentence of three years imprisonment. Without dispute, no written statement was ever filed by the trial court articulating the reasons for the seven-year departure from the sentencing guidelines’ recommended sentence. Although the trial judge explained orally in open court his reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, which at that time was permissible in this district, Tucker v. State, 464 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the Florida Supreme Court has since held that such oral statements are insufficient and that a written statement by the trial court articulating the reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines is required under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(b)(6), (d)(ll).
State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054, 1055-56 (Fla.1986).
We specifically reject the state’s argument that Jackson should not be applied retroactively, reverse the sentences appealed from, and remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing in accord with the views expressed in this opinion. Of course, if the defendant feels aggrieved by the trial court’s written order, when entered upon remand, he may file a new appeal in this cause.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Tucker v. State, 464 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)