STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
KIMBERLY MESTAS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that community control as a condition of probation constitutes a departure sentence under sentencing guidelines when the recommended sentence is any nonstate prison sanction, requiring written reasons for its imposition. The Court resolved a conflict among district courts and approved the Second District's decision to remand for striking the community control condition.
Community control is not an alternative sanction within the recommended range of any nonstate prison sanction and therefore constitutes a departure sentence requiring written reasons under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11). The sentence must be remanded to strike the community control condition.
[1] Community control is a departure sentence when the sentencing guidelines recommend any nonstate prison sanction.
[2] Written reasons are required for imposing community control as a condition of probation when the recommended sentence is any nonstate prison sanction.
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“Community control is not an alternative sanction from the recommended range of any nonstate prison sanction unless the provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll) [articulated reasons for departure] are applied.”
Establishes that community control requires departure justification under the sentencing guidelines
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKimberly Mestas pled guilty to grand theft in the second degree. Her sentencing guidelines recommended any nonstate prison sanction. The trial court s…
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 Nonstate Prison Sanction cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review Mestas v. State, 484 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), because of certified conflict with Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Louzon v. State, 460 So. 2d 551 (Fla.5th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. The issue presented is whether a sentence of community control as a condition of probation constitutes a “departure sentence” under the sentencing guidelines requiring written reasons for its imposition when the defendant’s recommended sentence is any “nonstate prison sanction.”
Kimberly Mestas pled guilty to grand theft in the second degree. Her recommended sentence under the guidelines was any “nonstate prison sanction.” The trial court sentenced her to a five-year term of probation with the condition that the first two years be served under community control. The district court found that community control was not a “nonstate prison sanction,” and therefore viewed Mestas’ sentence as a departure. Because there were no written reasons justifying a departure, the district court remanded to the trial court to strike the community control condition of Mestas’ probation.
The state contends that community control should be considered a “nonstate prison sanction” and that therefore the sentence in this case is not a departure sentence. Both parties concede that this Court has recently clarified this issue in the latest amendment to the committee note dealing with the imposition of community control:
Community control is not an alternative sanction from the recommended range of any nonstate prison sanction unless the provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll) [articulated reasons for departure] are applied. The Florida Bar Re: Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines, 3.701, 3.988), 482 So. 2d 311, 317 (Fla.1985) (Committee Note (d)(13)).
This revision was intended to clarify the intent of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission that community control is not to be considered as a nonstate prison sanction under the guidelines. We decline the state’s invitation to reconsider this issue. Community control, which is a harsh and more severe alternative to ordinary probation, is a departure sentence when the guidelines call for any “nonstate prison sanction.” Accordingly, we approve the decision below and disapprove Davis and Louzon.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., and ADKINS, J. (Ret.), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990)…y control to show that he was in fact incarcerated for the purpose of subsection 921.141(5)(a). Defense counsel objected. When the state’s purpose was explained, defense counsel responded: “I think you’ve already proved that.”11 In State v. Mestas, 507 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1987), we held that a trial judge must articulate reasons for departure before imposing a sentence of community control when the guidelines call for a nonprison sentence. We sustained the contention that community control is something greater t…
-
State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989)…elying on its prior decision in Harrison v. State, 523 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Although we agree with the Third District Court of Appeal that Betancourt’s original sentence must be characterized as a departure sentence, see State v. Mestas, 507 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1987), we disagree with the district court’s holding that the trial court must sentence Betancourt within the guidelines on remand. In our recent opinion in Roberts, we held that “it is proper for a judge to reconsider whether a departure from…
-
State v. Davis, 630 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1994)…when the presumptive guideline sentence directs community control or incarceration, the imposition of both represents a departure from the sentencing guidelines, requiring proper written reasons for the departure.” Additionally, in State v. Mestas, 507 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1987), we held that community control is [*1060] not a nonstate prison sentence and that community control as a condition of probation is a departure sentence requiring written reasons to support its imposition. In Ewing v. State, 526 So. 2d 10…
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Fla. Bar re: Rules of Crim. Procedure (sentencing Guidelines, 482 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1985)
- Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Mestas v. State, 484 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Claudette Lisa Louzon v. State, 460 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)