BYRON LAMBERT, 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 reversed the trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines because the judge failed to provide written reasons for the departure, as required by law.
A trial court must provide written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines, and failure to do so requires reversal and remand for resentencing.
[1] A trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines must be accompanied by written reasons; oral pronouncements alone are insufficient and require reversal.
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 intelligenceLambert was previously sentenced and appealed; after the first reversal, the trial court resentenced him and departed from the recommended guidelines …
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 Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
We write today about not only another sentencing guidelines departure case but about what we fear we perceive is the beginning of a second generation of sentencing guidelines departure cases. At the very least, this is the second occasion we deal with the issue of departure in the same case. After our first reversal herein, 477 So. 2d 1065, the trial court resentenced Lambert and departed from the recommended sentence under the guidelines. This time, from the record before us, we must reverse as the trial judge erred in failing to provide written reasons for his departure. State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985). We are not able to, as appellant would have us do, analyze the trial court’s oral pronouncements of reasons for departure because appellant has brought to us an incomplete record. The record does not contain the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. If the trial court’s third attempt at sentencing is not a charm, defense counsel is admonished to file a complete record.
For the trial court’s edification, the Second District Court of Appeal finds the following cases particularly controlling in the instant case. Vanover v. State, 498 So. 2d 899 (Fla.1986); Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985); Massard v. State, 501 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Reid v. State, 488 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Teehan v. State, 488 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); and Tompkins v. State, 483 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Creed Martin Vanover v. State, 498 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1986)
- Tompkins v. State, 483 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Massard v. State, 501 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Teehan v. State, 488 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Jones v. State, 488 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Reid v. State, 488 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Lambert v. State, 477 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)