MARK ODEN, WILLIAM RUNYON, AND GARY BOTTO, APPELLANTS,
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.
On remand for resentencing after a prior reversal, appellants challenge their sentences for prison riot-related offenses, arguing the trial court failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines. The court agrees and reverses, finding no valid reasons for departure under recent Florida Supreme Court restrictions.
The trial court's reasons for departure are not valid under recent Florida Supreme Court restrictions on factors supporting guidelines departure. The sentences are reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines, with appellants entitled to credit for any time served awaiting resentencing after completion of prior sentences.
[1] A trial court's reasons for departing from recommended sentencing guidelines must be clear and convincing.
[2] A plea agreement does not permit a departure from sentencing guidelines without further justification if the trial court did not understand that specific interpretation o…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We reject the State's contention that the issue is not whether the reasons for departure are valid, because appellants agreed not to object to the sentences as long as they were less than 12 years”
Establishes that the court rejected the State's reliance on plea agreement conditions to avoid scrutiny of departure reasons
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Oden, Runyon, and Botto pleaded guilty to attempting to cause a riot, throwing deadly missiles, and burglary arising from a prison riot. Th…
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 Plea Bargain Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Mark Oden, William Runyon, and Gary Botto appeal their sentences on remand1 for offenses which arose out of a prison riot, asserting that the trial court’s reasons for departure from the recommended guidelines sentences were not “clear and convincing”. We agree and reverse.
We reject the State’s contention that the issue is not whether the reasons for departure are valid, because appellants agreed not to object to the sentences as long as they were less than 12 years, and that appellants are here attempting to repudiate their plea bargains. The state’s brief in the prior appeal of this cause2 made no mention of the position taken in this appeal (i.e., that the plea bargain supports devia tion from the guidelines for up to 12 years without further reasons needed). The record does not indicate that the trial court understood this to be the plea agreement, either at the original sentencing proceeding or at the resentencing.
The state has made no argument in this appeal regarding the validity of the reasons for departure enunciated by the trial court. Given the recent Florida Supreme Court restrictions on those factors which may be found by the appellate courts to support departure from sentencing guidelines, we find that none of the reasons enunciated by the trial court are valid.
The sentences are REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for resentencing within the guidelines. On resentencing, appellants are entitled to credit for any time they may have been held in prison awaiting resentencing on the instant convictions after they had completed serving their sentences on the prior convictions.
SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur. . Appellants pled guilty to attempting to cause a riot, throwing deadly missiles, and burglary, and elected guidelines sentencing. A condition of the pleas was that appellants would not object to justified departure sentences which did not exceed 12 years imprisonment consecutive to the sentences currently being served.
The trial judge stated that he was deviating from the recommended range and gave oral, but not written reasons for the departure. On appeal, the sentences were vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing because of the trial court’s failure to provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reasons for departure. Oden v. State, 463 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), affirmed, State v. Oden, 478 So. 2d 51 (Fla.1985).
. See footnote 1.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Williams, 515 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…elines without providing a contemporaneous written statement of the reasons therefore at the time each sentence was pronounced.” Ree v. State, 512 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), citing State v. Oden, 478 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1985), appeal after remand, 502 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (emphasis supplied); see Elkins v. State, 489 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). For these reasons we reverse the order and remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing unless defendants seek to withdraw their pleas. In th…
-
State v. Torres, 528 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…mposed concurrently in four consolidated cases. We reverse. The trial court failed to provide a contemporaneous written statement setting forth the reasons for the guidelines departure. State v. Oden, 478 So. 2d 51 (Fla.1985), appeal after remand, 502 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); State v. Williams, 515 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Ree v. State, 512 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(11). Pursuant to State v. Thomas, 516 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), the defendant should be given…
-
State v. Barber, 533 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. We reverse. The trial court failed to provide a contemporaneous written statement setting forth the reasons for the guidelines departure. State v. Oden, 478 So. 2d 51 (Fla.1985), appeal after remand, 502 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); State v. Williams, 515 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Ree v. State, 512 So. 2d 1085 (Fla 4th DCA 1987); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll). The defendant should be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Williams. REVERSED.…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Winter, 478 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1985)
- Oden v. State, 463 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)