JOSEPH GEORGE YUKANOVITZ, 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.
Defendant Yukanovitz appeals his sentence for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, arguing it was an improper upward departure from sentencing guidelines. The court affirms the sentence because it was the exact sentence agreed upon in the plea agreement, which does not require departure reasons.
A sentence that was expressly agreed upon in a plea agreement does not require stated reasons for any departure from the sentencing guidelines recommended range, even if the sentence deviates from the applicable guidelines cell.
[1] A sentence agreed upon by the defendant and the state generally does not require specific reasons for departure from the recommended sentencing guidelines range.
[2] A sentence of incarceration in county jail followed by community control is permissible, even if the sentencing guidelines recommend only community control or state priso…
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“Such sentences generally do not require any other reason for departure from the recommended range.”
Establishes the holding that agreed-upon sentences do not require stated departure reasons
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYukanovitz pleaded nolo contendere to lewd, lascivious or indecent act upon or in the presence of a child. The plea agreement provided he would receiv…
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 Right To Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
[*723] NIMMONS, Judge.
The defendant appeals from his sentence contending that it was an upward departure and contrary to the plea agreement. He pled nolo contendere to the offense of lewd, lascivious or indecent act upon or in the presence of a child. As a part of the plea agreement, the defendant was to receive the “low side of the guidelines,” i.e., the defendant would be sentenced to the lower end of the guidelines range of whatever cell the defendant fell within in the Category 2 scoresheet. There was the further express understanding that the trial court would retain the right, after obtaining and reviewing the presentence investigation report, to not adhere to the low end of the guidelines cell in which case the defendant would be entitled to withdraw his nolo plea.
Several weeks later at sentencing, the trial court announced that it could not go along with the lower end of the guidelines cell which turned out to be the one which calls for a recommended range of “community control or 12-30 months incarceration”. In accordance with the earlier understanding, the court informed the defendant that he would be permitted to withdraw his nolo plea. The court advised the defendant that if he did not withdraw his plea, he would be sentenced to a year in the county jail, followed by two years on community control, followed by eight years on probation. The defendant then indicated that he was agreeable with the proposed sentence and that he wished to adhere to the nolo plea. Whereupon, the court proceeded to impose the above sentence.
Appellant asserts on appeal that the sentence of both incarceration and community control is a departure from the applicable guidelines cell, i.e., community control or 12-30 months incarceration, and that such a departure without stating reasons therefor is improper. We need not reach the question of whether the subject sentence was a departure sentence.1 For, even if it was, the sentence imposed was precisely that which was agreed upon. Such sentences generally do not require any other reason for departure from the recommended range. White v. State, 531 So. 2d 711 (Fla.1988); Valdes v. State, 528 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Denmark v. State, 519 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), review denied 529 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1988).
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., concur. . Appellant claims that the imposition of both community control and incarceration is violative of the holding in State v. Van Kooten, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1988) (sentence of 30 months incarceration in state prison followed by community control not permissible). However, we have not read the Van Kooten holding so broadly:
Van Kooten ⅛ proscription against the imposition of community control plus incarceration applies only when the incarceration is in the state prison, not to imprisonment in the county jail as a condition of community control.
Distefano v. State, 526 So. 2d 110, 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In Distefano, we approved the trial court’s imposition of a two-year term of community control with the condition that 364 days be served in the county jail. Accord, Reese v. State, 535 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (sentence of two years of community control with condition that defendant spend 51 days in county jail held not a departure from the recommended range of community control or 12-30 months incarceration). Whether a different result should obtain in a case such as the one at bar where the county jail time and community control are imposed consecutively is, as mentioned above, an issue we need not address since the sentence was agreed to.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. State, 730 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…two offenses. Any error on a scoresheet is harmless where a defendant’s sentences are the result of his negotiated plea agreement. White v. State, 531 So. 2d 711 (Fla.1988); Gainer v. State, 590 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Yukanovitz v. State, 547 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The trial court sentenced Appellant to the same terms to which he had agreed in his plea agreement. Therefore, Ground Three was properly denied. [*324] REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with Williams, s…
-
Collins v. State, 596 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…nces exceeded the maximum period of incarceration permitted under the guidelines, reasoning that a departure sentence does not result where the combined sanctions do not exceed the maximum guidelines incarcerative period. Accord Yukanovitz v. State, 547 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Reese v. State, 535 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). The sentencing guidelines scoresheet used in this case contained a total score of sixty-four points, placing appellant in the recommended sentencing range of any non-state pri…
-
Reynolds v. State, 598 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…specifically encompassed the violations of probation, was a valid reason for the trial court to depart from the sentencing guidelines and did not require written reasons. See Smith v. State, 529 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1988); Holland; Yukanovitz v. State, 547 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The concurrent 5-year terms of imprisonment for VOP are legal and will not be disturbed. Jones v. State, 387 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Adams v. State, 347 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. VanKOOTEN, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Bodine, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1988)
- Distefano v. State, 526 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- White v. State, 531 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1988)
- Reese v. State, 535 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Denmark v. State, 519 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Valdes v. State, 528 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)