JAMES LEWIS, 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.
James Lewis was convicted of robbery and sentenced to three years imprisonment plus three years community control as a youthful offender. The court reversed his sentence because it exceeded the guidelines and lacked written reasons for departure, remanding for resentencing within statutory guidelines.
The sentence is reversed and remanded because it constitutes an illegal departure from the guidelines without written reasons. The three years of community control is excessive by one year under Florida law, and the trial court failed to provide written reasons for any departure from the sentencing guidelines.
[1] A sentence exceeding statutory limits for community control is illegal, even if the total incarceration period aligns with sentencing guidelines.
[2] Reasons for sentencing a defendant as an adult do not constitute valid reasons 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 trial court at sentencing on July 31, 1987, said that there was absolutely no basis for deviating from the guidelines sentence and indicated that it was not going to go over or under the guidelines.”
Establishes the trial court's stated intent not to depart from guidelines, contradicting its actual sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis was tried to a jury and convicted of robbery without a weapon. He was sentenced as a youthful offender to three years imprisonment followed by t…
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 Departure From Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
Appellant was tried to a jury and convicted of robbery without a weapon. He was sentenced as a youthful offender to three years’ imprisonment followed by three years’ community control. The guidelines sentence was two and one-half to three and one-half years. The record reflects no written reasons for departure. We reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with the statutory guidelines.
The trial court at sentencing on July 31,1987, said that there was absolutely no basis for deviating from the guidelines sentence and indicated that it was not going to go over or under the guidelines. There is nothing in the record to indicate that it changed its mind. However, it was under the mistaken belief, because of defense counsel’s statement and the prosecutor’s silence, that it could sentence the defendant — without departure — to three years of incarceration and three years of community control.
On August 7, 1987, nunc pro tunc July 31, 1987, it spelled out six reasons for sentencing the defendant as an adult, not for departing from the guidelines.
Unfortunately, the three years of community control is excessive by one year. See § 948.01(5), Fla.Stat. (1985). The net result is that the sentence is what the trial court wanted; but it is illegal because of the absence of written reasons for departure.
Unlike our companion court in Vega v. State, 498 So. 2d 1294, 1296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), we are unwilling — as a reviewing court — to consider the reasons given by a trial court for sentencing the defendant as an adult as reasons for departure. In such instance, the trial court is considering punishment of the defendant as an adult, not enhancement of punishment as an adult. Moreover, the trial court knows reasonably well what are valid reasons for departure. There is no reason for us to assume the six reasons given here imposing adult punishment would have been considered by the trial court for departure, when we find all six to be invalid for that purpose.
On remand, we direct the trial court to sentence the defendant as a youthful offender within the guidelines. Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987), emphasizes that the sentencing hearing is a very critical, precise proceeding, requiring proper preparation by the lawyers as well as presentation to and understanding by the trial judge. Its message is that departure is to be properly effected at that time, if at all.
DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gartrell v. State, 609 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…a. 4th DCA 1990) (“the imposed sentence of straight probation departed from the sentencing guidelines and the trial judge gave no written reasons for the downward departure ... [accordingly, we reverse appellant’s illegal sentence”); Lewis v. State, 532 So. 2d 1340, 1341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (sentencing was illegal because of the absence of written reasons for departure). The dissent does not agree that such sentences are illegal, pointing to sections 924.06 and 924.07, Florida Statutes (1991), and rule 9.140(…
Authorities Cited
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Elvin Vega v. State, 498 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)