EDWARD LEON ROUSSEAU, 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 court held that when a sentencing court departs from guidelines based on reasons prohibited by State v. Mischler, an appellate court cannot apply the harmless error rule; reversal is mandated.
The appellate court initially affirmed a departure sentence, finding that even with some invalid reasons, the sentence would have been the same. Howev…
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 Guidelines Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
In his motion for rehearing, Rousseau suggests that this court, in affirming his guidelines sentence, has overlooked what he characterizes as the “per se reversible error rule” of State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523, (Fla.1986). In Mischler, the Supreme Court stated that:
A reason which is prohibited by the guidelines themselves can never be used to justify departure. Factors already taken into account in calculating the guidelines score can never support departure. A court cannot use an inherent component of the crime in question to justify departure. If any of the reasons given by the trial court to justify de parture fall into any of the three above-mentioned categories, an appellate court is obligated to find that departure is improper, (emphasis supplied).
In our previous opinion, we held that, despite a preponderance of invalid reasons for departure (three out of five), the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence. See Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985). However, two of the three invalid reasons fall within the categories established by Misehler as mandating reversal of any departure relying thereon. The motion for rehearing must therefore be granted. The sentence is reversed and the case remanded for re-sentencing.
We certify the following question as being of great public importance:
When an appellate court finds that a sentencing court, in departing from the presumptive guideline sentence, relied upon a reason within the three categories condemned in State v. Mischler, [488 So. 2d 523], 11 F.L.W. 139 (Fla.1986), may the appellate court apply the harmless error rule articulated in Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985) or is reversal mandated without regard for the harmless error rule?
Reversed.
SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1987)…EHRLICH, Justice. We have for our review Rousseau v. State, 489 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), wherein the district court certified the following question of great public importance: WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT, IN DEPARTING FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE GUIDELINES SENTENCE, RELIED UPON A REASON WITHIN T…
-
Watson v. State, 504 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…Supreme Court opinion of State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986), wherein the Court held that reasons, such as number three herein, which are inherent components of the crime can never support a departure sentence. See also, Rousseau v. State, 489 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Sentence reversed and remanded for re-sentencing. BOOTH, C.J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur.…
-
Scott v. State, 492 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…the Supreme Court’s opinion in Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985) and is also one of the three reasons that fall within the apparent per se reversal rule set forth in State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986). Compare Rousseau v. State, 489 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), with Daniels v. State, 492 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In any event, whether or not Mischler mandates reversal in this case, the state has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt, under the standard of appellate review set forth…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1986)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)