IRA CHESTER TYSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a departure sentence for armed robbery because the trial court improperly articulated new reasons for departure after its original reasons were invalidated on appeal, holding that all grounds for departure must be stated in the original sentencing order.
A trial court may not articulate new reasons for a departure sentence after appellate reversal of its original departure reasons; all grounds for departure must be stated in the original sentencing order.
[1] A trial court may not provide new reasons for a departure sentence after appellate reversal of its original departure grounds; all grounds must be articulated in the orig…
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 intelligence“A trial court may not enunciate new reasons for a departure sentence after the reasons given for the original departure have been reversed by an appellate court.”
Court's statement of the controlling legal principle regarding departure sentencing.
Ira Tyson was convicted of strong arm robbery with presumptive guidelines of 3.5 to 4.5 years. The trial judge orally stated he was departing due to 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 Presumptive Guidelines Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
The defendant, Ira Tyson, was convicted of strong arm robbery, for which the presumptive guidelines sentence is three and one-half to four and one-half years. The trial judge originally orally stated that he was departing from the guidelines because the defendant was an habitual offender and sentenced Tyson to thirty years’ incarceration. The defendant appealed the departure in Tyson v. State, 504 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). This Court reversed and ruled that the habitual offender statute cannot be used as a basis for departure and further ruled that the trial court failed to set forth in writing its grounds for departure. On remand the trial court again departed from the guidelines and gave two new written reasons for departure.
We reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines on the basis of the principle espoused in Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987), which holds that a trial court is required to articulate all of the reasons for departure in the original order so as to avoid unwarranted efforts to justify a departure. A trial court may not enunciate new reasons for a departure sentence after the reasons given for the original departure have been reversed by an appellate court. Although Shull dealt with a situation where the trial court had given written reasons for departure which were found to be invalid, we extend the rule to apply when a trial court merely states oral reasons for departure which are found to be invalid.
Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
DELL, J., concurs.
HERSEY, C.J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 530 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…ulate fully one of the former departure reasons to provide a clear and convincing reason to depart again on an Albritton remand, she has not violated the rule in Shull v. Dug-ger_” Cochran v. State, 13 F.L.W. at 960. We note that in Tyson v. State, 527 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), this court recently held that on resentencing a trial court may not rely on new reasons for departure, even where the initial grounds to depart were not in writing. See also Harris v. State, 520 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Ho…
-
Williams v. State, 545 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ee Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987) (trial court is precluded from "enunciat[ing] new reasons for a departure sentence after the reasons given for the original departure sentence have been reversed by an appellate court."); Tyson v. State, 527 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (trial court may not rely on new reasons for departure where initial grounds were not in writing and oral reason held invalid); Montgomery v. State, 521 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (new reasons for upward departure sentence may…
-
Mitchell v. State, 531 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…for departure from the guidelines were invalid. On remand the trial court stated new reasons for departure and resentenced appellant to the same sentence. We reverse on the authority of Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987) and Tyson v. State, 527 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). However, we note that the trial court did not have the benefit of Shull when it resentenced appellant since the supreme court issued its decision after the trial court rendered its sentence. We remand this case for resentencing…
Authorities Cited
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Barnett Banks Tr. Co., N.A. v. Hyman, 504 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)