STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD LEE JONES, APPELLEE; EDWARD LEE JONES, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a split sentence for failure to provide written grounds for downward departure from sentencing guidelines and remanded for correction of the sentencing pronouncement and conditions.
The sentence was reversed and remanded because the downward departure from guidelines lacked written grounds as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(11) and (12) and State v. Jackson. The trial court on remand must reconcile any disparity between oral and written sentences, correct the guilty plea notation to reflect jury conviction, and clarify whether public service is a condition of probation.
[1] A trial court must provide written grounds for a downward sentencing departure from the guidelines.
[2] A written sentence must conform to the oral sentence announced at the sentencing hearing.
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 state has cross appealed because the sentence imposed departed downward from the guidelines recommended sentence in that the in-carcerative portion of the split sentence was less than that provided in the guidelines, without providing written grounds therefor, in violation of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll) and (12)”
Establishes the core error: downward departure without required written grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward Lee Jones received a split sentence of two years imprisonment followed by two years probation with special conditions. At the oral sentencing h…
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 Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
As seems to be the case these days in almost every criminal appeal, we have a sentencing guidelines departure assigned as error. At the preliminary hearing the trial judge announced that he was giving appellant a sentence of four years; two years in the Department of Corrections and two years on probation with special stated conditions. Thereafter, when reduced to writing, the sentence was for two years’ imprisonment to be followed by two years’ probation with special conditions. Appellant contends the trial court erred in that the written sentence entered did not conform to the oral sentence announced at the sentencing hearing. Be that as it may, the state has cross appealed because the sentence imposed departed downward from the guidelines recommended sentence in that the in-carcerative portion of the split sentence was less than that provided in the guidelines, without providing written grounds therefor, in violation of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll) and (12), and State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985).
Unquestionably the cross appeal demonstrates error. While on remand the trial court will be able to rectify any disparity between his oral pronouncement and written sentence and he can rectify the oversight that was made in stating that appellant pled guilty instead of the true fact that he was found guilty by a jury. Furthermore, it is suggested that, if the court decides to continue the public service requirement, it should be made clear that it is a condition of probation in conformity with section 948.031, Florida Statutes, and State v. Muoio, 438 So. 2d 160 (Fla.2d DCA 1983).
Accordingly, the sentence imposed is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to make the appropriate changes in the sentence to conform with the law indicated herein.
DOWNEY, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Muoio, 438 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)