STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT EVANS, 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 State appealed a downward departure sentence imposed on a youthful offender convicted of robbery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years community control and 364 days jail time, below the guideline range of 3.5-4.5 years imprisonment, without providing written reasons for the departure. The court held that written reasons for downward departures are required even under the Youthful Offender Act.
A trial court must provide clear and convincing reasons in writing for any sentence imposed outside the guidelines, including downward departures, even when sentencing under the Youthful Offender Act. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11) applies to downward departures, and the trial court is not exempt from this requirement merely because the sentence is imposed pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act.
[1] A trial court imposing a sentence outside of the sentencing guidelines must provide clear and convincing reasons in writing for any downward departure, even when sentenci…
[2] The Youthful Offender Act does not exempt a sentencing court from the requirement of providing written reasons for a downward departure from the recommended guideline sen…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The provisions of this section shall not be used to impose a greater sentence than the maximum recommended range as established by statewide sentencing guidelines pursuant to s. 921.001 unless clear and convincing reasons are explained in writing by the trial court judge.”
The relevant statute addressing sentencing departures, which the trial court relied upon to justify its lack of written reasons for downward departure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee was convicted of robbery and sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act. His sentencing guidelines scoresheet reflected 93 points, yieldin…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.701(D)(11) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*986] DAUKSCH, Judge.
The state appeals from a robbery sentence. Appellee was sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act. Although his guidelines scoresheet reflected a total of ninety-three points yielding a presumptive three and one-half to four and one-half year imprisonment, appellant was sentenced to a period of four years community control with a condition that he serve 364 days in the county jail.
Because community control is considered to be less onerous than imprisonment, the state appeals the sentence on the grounds that the court failed to provide written reasons for its downward departure from the recommended guideline sentence. See State v. Esbenshade, 493 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The sentencing judge refused to give written reasons because, he said, the Youthful Offender Act “... took itself out of the guidelines, having been imposed and adopted after the guidelines statute ...” He said the youthful offender statute forbids an upward departure but says nothing about a downward one, so the legislature must have meant to permit downward departure. The pertinent statute is section 958.04(3):
The provisions of this section shall not be used to impose a greater sentence than the maximum recommended range as established by statewide sentencing guidelines pursuant to s. 921.001 unless clear and convincing reasons are explained in writing by the trial court judge. A sentence imposed outside of such guidelines shall be subject to appeal by the defendant pursuant to s. 924.06.
The statute does indeed refer only to upward departures and the defendant’s right to appeal, with no mention of downward departures or a state right to appeal. The question then is whether the statutory maxim expressio unius est exclusio alteri-us (the inclusion of one thing implies the exclusion of another) applies to this statute; thus whether the legislature meant to allow trial judges to depart downwards in these cases for any reason — and to give no reason at all.
In acknowledging that section 958.04(3) does not address a downward departure, the trial court is correct. This is not to say, however, that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11) which specifically requires clear and convincing reasons, in writing, for any sentence imposed outside of the guidelines, does not apply. Because we find this section to be applicable, we find that the trial court is not exempt from entering written reasons for its downward departure merely because the sentence is imposed pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Weston, 510 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ely statutory, State v. [*1003] Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1985), the appeal is dismissed.2’3 Appeal dismissed. . The state admits that this is the case here. . We recognize and certify that this result is directly contrary to State v. Evans, 503 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), with which we respectfully disagree. . Because of the likely review of our holding and in the interest of a complete adjudication of this cause, we alternatively, by what is no doubt technically dictum, review the merits of the…
-
State v. Diers, 532 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1988)…McDONALD, Justice. We review State v. Diers, 517 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), because of conflict with State v. Evans, 503 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 8(b)(8) of the state constitution. Diers held that the state could not appeal the sentence of a defendant sentenced pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act (section 958.04, Flori…
-
State v. Diers, 517 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…djudged youthful offenders. § 958.021, Fla.Stat. (1985). We, as did the third district in Weston and again in State v. Odom, 514 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), certify that our decision conflicts with the fifth district’s opinion in State v. Evans, 503 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), which allowed a state appeal from a Y.O.A. sentence because the judge had failed to explain the guidelines departure in writing. Our review of the record in connection with the defendant’s cross-appeal discloses substantial com…
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
- Claydean Goggans v. Kalp, 493 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)