WILLIAM DANA JOHNSON, 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.
Appellate court reversed defendant's upward departure sentence of 17 years because the trial court failed to reduce to writing its reasons for departure from the guidelines, requiring remand for resentencing within guidelines.
A trial court must reduce to writing its reasons for an upward departure from sentencing guidelines at the time of sentencing or by separating the sentencing hearing from the imposition of sentence.
[1] When an appellate court reverses a departure sentence due to lack of written reasons, the court must remand for resentencing with no possibility of departure from the gui…
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“[T]he trial court can impose a departure sentence by writing out its findings at the time sentence is imposed, while still on the bench.... [If] further reflection is required to determine the propriety or extent of departure, the trial court may separate the sentencing hearing from the actual imposition of sentence.”
Ree v. State, describing the two permissible methods for imposing a departure sentence
William Dana Johnson received a sentence of 17 years, which constituted an upward departure from the guideline sentence of 5⅛⅛ to 7 years.…
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 Written Findings Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
William Dana Johnson appeals his sentence of 17 years contending that the trial court erred in the upward departure from the guidelines sentence of 5⅛⅛ to 7 years.
Appellant correctly contends that the trial court erred in failing to reduce to writing its reasons for the upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. A trial court has two options when finding a departure is warranted. “[T]he trial court can impose a departure sentence by writing out its findings at the time sentence is imposed, while still on the bench.... [If] further reflection is required to determine the propriety or extent of departure, the trial court may separate the sentencing hearing from the actual imposition of sentence.” Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990). In the instant case, the trial court did not exercise either option.
Pursuant to the supreme court’s decision in Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554, 556 (Fla.1990), “when an appellate court reverses a departure sentence because there were no written reasons, the court must remand for resentencing with no possibility of departure from the guidelines.”
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to resentence the defendant within the guidelines.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- REE v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1990)