ROOSEVELT HILL, 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.
Roosevelt Hill appeals his conviction for dealing in stolen property and his sentence as a habitual offender. The court affirms the conviction but reverses and remands the sentence because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines and improperly relied on habitual offender status as a basis for departure.
The court affirms the conviction on all grounds raised by Hill. However, the sentence is reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines, and habitual offender status alone does not provide adequate justification for departure from guidelines sentencing. The trial court may depart from guidelines if clear and convincing reasons are set forth in writing.
[1] A trial court's failure to provide written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines requires reversal of the sentence.
[2] A transcript of oral statements made by a judge at sentencing does not satisfy the statutory requirement for written reasons for departure from sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 transcript of oral statements made by the judge at sentencing will not satisfy the sentencing guidelines requirement of written reasons”
Establishes that the trial court must provide written, not merely oral, reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHill was convicted of dealing in stolen property. The trial court found Hill to be an habitual offender and sentenced him to 15 years incarceration, w…
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
JOANOS, Judge.
Hill appeals his conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property. Hill asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance or exclusion of testimony. Hill also contends that the trial court erred in finding the appellant to be an habitual offender.
We find no merit in the appellant’s asserted grounds for reversal of his conviction and therefore affirm the conviction.
However, because Hill was sentenced as an habitual offender pursuant to Section 775.084 Florida Statutes (1985), and sentenced to 15 years incarceration, which exceeds the sentencing guidelines recommendation by 7 years, the trial court was required to set forth in writing its reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines range. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court failed to reduce to writing its reasons for departure. The Florida Supreme Court as well as this court has previously held that a transcript of oral statements made by the judge at sentencing will not satisfy the sentencing guidelines requirement of written reasons. See Jackson v. State, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985); Hall v. State, 492 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and Shull v. State, 481 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Also, the trial court may no longer depart from the guidelines based on appellant’s habitual offender status. The Florida Supreme Court has recently held that habitual offender status does not provide an exemption to guidelines sentencing nor is it an adequate reason to depart from the recommended guidelines sentence. Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986).
However, the trial court may still depart from the guidelines sentence if clear and convincing reasons can be set forth.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment but reverse the sentence and remand for new sentencing consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 499 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…t decision holding that habitual offender status is an invalid reason for departing from the recommended guidelines sentence. Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). See also, Sharp v. State, 497 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hill v. State, 498 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The third reason for departure is likewise invalid. Oral statements made by the judge at sentencing will not satisfy the sentencing guidelines requirement of written reasons. Jackson v. State, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985); Hill v…
-
Webster v. State, 500 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…4). The second reason for departure is not clear and convincing. Oral statements made by the judge at sentencing will not satisfy the sentencing guidelines requirement of written reasons. Jackson v. State, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985); Hill v. State, 498 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hall v. State, 492 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); and Shull v. State, 481 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). A review of the record, however, reveals that the trial judge based his departure on a single reason. Although at senten…
-
Migilore v. State, 550 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…nd has committed heinous crimes while awaiting sentence on this crime. He shows no remorse. None of the reasons listed on the score-sheet is sufficient for departure from the guidelines. Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1987); Hill v. State, 498 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Aleman v. State, 498 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Bradley v. State, 509 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); State v, Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986); Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Rease v. State, 485 So. 2d 5 (…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Shull v. State, 481 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Kent Ins. Co. & Charles Atwood v. In re Est. OF Vealon Andrews Atwood, 481 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Hall v. State, 492 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)