RONNIE N. MATTHEWS, 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.
Conviction for leaving the scene of an accident affirmed, but sentence vacated because the trial court impermissibly relied on habitual offender status and conclusory retribution/rehabilitation/deterrence findings to depart from sentencing guidelines.
A trial court cannot depart from sentencing guidelines based on an offender's habitual offender classification or conclusory statements about retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence.
[1] A trial court may not depart from sentencing guidelines based on classification of the defendant as a habitual offender or on conclusory statements regarding retribution,…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury and sentenced above the guidelines recommendation.…
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 Retribution cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence for leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury. We affirm the judgment of conviction, but we find that in imposing sentence the court predicated a departure from the Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 sentencing guidelines upon impermissible considerations.
In its written reasons for departing from the recommended guidelines sentence the court indicated that appellant is an habitual offender, and that the recommended sentence does not provide adequate retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence. Classification as an habitual offender will not support a departure from the guidelines recommendation. See Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). The court’s conclusory statement as to retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence merely indicates a personal disagreement with the recommended sentence and thus also will not support a departure from the guidelines recommendation. Cf, Scurry v. State, 489 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1986). Although the court did specify other reasons for departure, it is not clear that the same sentence would have been imposed without consideration of these impermissible factors. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The sentence imposed is vacated, and the cause remanded for resentencing.
WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ridgeway v. State, 555 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…, protect society, and provide restitution_” The protection of society is not a valid reason for departure. Mitchell v. State, 507 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The need for rehabilitation is also an invalid basis for departure. Matthews v. State, 502 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). While the trial court may order restitution, it is in addition to any punishment and is not considered in the sentencing guidelines. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Rule 9.315(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Proc…
Authorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Scurry v. State, 489 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1986)