GEORGE COULITSIS, 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.
Coulitsis appeals his conviction and sentence for manslaughter by culpable negligence. The court affirmed his conviction but reversed his sentence, holding that the trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines lacked clear and convincing reasons as required by law.
The trial court's departure from the sentencing guidelines was not supported by clear and convincing reasons. The court's justification was inadequate because it consisted largely of factual recitations, references to facts for which the defendant was not charged or convicted, and conclusory statements rather than articulated reasons for departure.
[1] A trial court's factual findings supporting a departure from sentencing guidelines must be clear and convincing.
[2] A statement of the facts of the case does not constitute a clear and convincing reason for departing from sentencing guidelines.
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“The circumstances are particularly aggravating because earlier, on the same evening, the defendant participated in or at least was aware of other similar activity when a block was put in a bag and the defendant witnessed another vehicle strike a block of cement or timber or both, losing control of the automobile and sustaining a blow-out.”
Trial court's attempt to justify departure, but the appellate court found this referenced facts for which defendant was not charged or convicted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found that Coulitsis placed concrete blocks and timber on Shady Hills Road. The victim swerved to avoid the debris, struck a truck, and died in…
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 Manslaughter By Culpable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for manslaughter by culpable negligence. The first two points on appeal concern his conviction. We find no error in the trial court’s rulings at trial; therefore we affirm his conviction. Appellant’s final point on appeal is whether the trial court’s reasons for departure from the presumptive guidelines range were clear and convincing. We hold the trial court’s departure was not supported by clear and convincing reasons; therefore appellant must be resentenced within the guidelines.
The facts of the case are stated succinctly in the trial court’s “justification for the departure”:
The jury, by its verdict, found that the defendant had placed concrete blocks and timber on Shady Hills Road. The victim swerved to avoid the debris and impacted his vehicle with a truck, which collision caused the victim’s death. The circumstances are particularly aggravating because earlier, on the same evening, the defendant participated in or at least was aware of other similar activity when a block was put in a bag and the defendant witnessed another vehicle strike a block of cement or timber or both, losing control of the automobile and sustaining a blow-out. The defendant witnessed that person fix the tire and it was subsequent to that incident that the defendant placed additional debris on the roadway. The defendant’s conduct in totality was so intrinsically permeated with extreme risk of physical injury to unsuspecting motorists that his outrageously reckless conduct justifies and requires a sentence more severe than the presumptively correct guideline sentence.
The above language does not provide sufficient justification in support of the trial court’s departure.
We cannot affirm the trial court’s sentencing guidelines departure based, as it is, on the above language. The first two sentences of the “justification for the departure” are simply a statement of the facts of the case. The third sentence states facts surrounding the offense for which appellant was neither charged nor convicted. The fourth sentence contains facts inherent in “culpable negligence.” The fifth sentence is merely a conclusory sentence and is neither “clear and convincing” nor a “reason.” Scott v. State, 508 So. 2d 335 (Fla.1987) In all, the trial court has not stated any reasons upon which we can affirm the departure. We reverse and vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.