THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENE SINGLETARY, 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 appeals a trial court's downward departure from sentencing guidelines. The state contends that the court improperly relied on estoppel principles based on the state's initial miscalculation of guidelines scores, departing from the nine to twelve year recommended range to impose concurrent 2.5-year sentences. The court reverses, holding that estoppel does not apply because the state was not a party to the plea bargain and offered no plea itself.
The court held that the trial court's departure was improper and vacated the sentence. Estoppel does not apply because the state offered no plea to the defendant and was not a party to the plea bargain offered by the court. Clear and convincing reasons for departure from guidelines are required, and the trial court's stated rationale was not sufficiently clear and convincing.
[1] A trial court must provide clear and convincing reasons for a downward departure from sentencing guidelines.
[2] Estoppel principles do not apply to prevent the state from correcting an erroneous sentencing guideline calculation when the state did not offer a plea bargain.
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“A trial court is not free to offer a plea bargain which is below the sentencing guidelines unless the court provides clear and convincing reasons for its departure.”
Establishes the legal standard requiring clear and convincing reasons for sentencing departures below guidelines
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Singletary was charged with offenses in two separate cases. At arraignment on one case, the state presented an incorrectly calculated guidel…
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 Downward Departure From Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals from a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Defendant was charged with separate offenses in two different cases. At his arraignment on the charges in one case, the state presented to the trial court a guidelines scoresheet which listed only one of the pending cases and thus had been incorrectly calculated to show a 2½ to 3¾⅛ year range. The state was not aware of the error and did not extend a plea offer. One and one-half months later, both cases were before the court for report. Based upon a plea offered by the court, the defendant pled no contest in both cases in exchange for concurrent sentences of 2V2 years. The recommended guidelines sentence was nine to twelve years. In its written reason for departure, the trial court stated:
State advised court at arraignment on Case 88-19143 that defendant’s guidelines were 2V2 to 3½ for both cases. Scoresheet was apparently erroneous. In reliance upon state’s oral representations as to the score, the court proposed a plea of 2lk years to the defendant which the defendant accepted before the error was discovered. The state is es-topped from changing its computation due to the Court’s reliance upon its representations.
The state objected to the plea bargain offered by the court.
A trial court is not free to offer a plea bargain which is below the sentencing guidelines unless the court provides clear and convincing reasons for its departure. State v. Johnson, 512 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We do not find the reason given for the departure “clear and convincing.” Although principles of estoppel may be applied in carrying out the terms of a plea bargain, see Madrigal v. State, 545 So. 2d 392, 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), and cases cited therein, here, estoppel has no application. The state offered no plea to defendant and was not a party to the plea bargain offered by the court.
Accordingly, we vacate the sentence under review and remand with directions to the trial court to resentence defendant within the sentencing guidelines or to allow defendant to withdraw his plea if he so chooses. State v. Brown, 545 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Sentence vacated and cause remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 559 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…though principles of estoppel may be applied in carrying out the terms of a plea bargain, here estoppel has no application. The state offered no plea to the defendant and was not a party to the plea bargain offered by the court. State v. Singletary, 547 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989). We should not permit the defendant to rely on an illegal sentence negotiated with the trial court. The alternative to imposing an illegal sentence is to sentence the defendant to a term within the appropriate guideline or, if h…
Authorities Cited
- Domingo Antonio Madrigal v. State, 545 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Johnson, 512 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- State v. Brown, 545 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Biscayne Video Club, Inc. v. Dougherty, 545 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)