VIRGIL ROBINSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district court decisions regarding sentencing departures. The Court held that when an appellate court reverses a departure sentence due to lack of contemporaneous written reasons, the trial court must resentence within the guidelines without any possibility of again departing from them.
When an appellate court reverses a departure sentence because there were no written reasons, the trial court must resentence within the guidelines with no possibility of departing from the guidelines. The trial court cannot again attempt to depart from the guidelines on remand.
[1] A trial court must produce contemporaneous written reasons when departing from sentencing guidelines.
[2] When an appellate court reverses a departure sentence due to the absence of written reasons, the case must be remanded for resentencing without the possibility of departu…
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“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”
This is the controlling legal principle from Pope v. State that the Court applied to Robinson's case, establishing that trial courts cannot attempt further departures after reversal for lack of written reasons.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson was convicted by jury of two counts of resisting arrest with violence, one count of battery on a law enforcement officer, and one count of si…
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 Appellate Review Of Sentencing Departures cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
We have for review Robinson v. State, 557 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of this Court in Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. A jury convicted Robinson of two counts of resisting arrest with violence, one count of battery on a law enforcement officer, and one count of simple battery. The trial court ordered a sixteen-year sentence rather than the recommended guideline sentence of twelve-to-thirty months, but provided no accompanying written statement of the reasons for departure as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 3.701(d)(ll). Instead, it orally gave two reasons for the ordered departure sentence. On appeal, the district court vacated the sentence but observed that the lower court could depart from the guidelines by written order. Robinson v. State, 541 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Upon remand, the trial court resentenced Robinson to the same sentence originally ordered. Once again, no written reasons were contemporaneously given to support departure, although some seven months later written reasons for departure were recorded. Based upon inspection of the record together with the state’s confession of error, the district court concluded the trial court erred by not contemporaneously reducing to writing the reasons for departure. Based upon this conclusion, the district court vacated Robinson’s sentence and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. The district court gave the trial court the option of resentencing Robinson within the guidelines or departing from the guidelines if such departure was supported with contemporaneous written findings and reasons.
Robinson contends that the portion of the district court’s opinion which would permit the trial court to again depart from the recommended guideline sentence conflicts with the decision of this Court in Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). We agree. In Pope, we held that “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.” 561 So. 2d at 556. See also Ferguson v. State, 566 So. 2d 255 (Fla.1990).
Accordingly, we quash that portion of the decision below which would permit the trial court to depart from the recommended guideline sentence. We remand to the district court with directions to remand to the trial court for sentencing within the guidelines.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)…eously authorized the trial court to depart from the guidelines in resentencing after no valid contemporaneous written reasons had been given to justify the original departure sentence. Likewise, we applied Pope retrospectively in Robinson v. State, 571 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1990). The inconsistent application of retro-spectivity has much precedent. As the United States Supreme Court observed, this historically has been one of the most confusing and unprincipled areas of jurisprudence. See, e.g., Griffith v. Kentu…
-
Coley v. State, 616 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…1036] are authorized to impose probationary split sentences, Glass v. State, 574 So. 2d 1099 (Fla.1991), the total sentence cannot exceed the sentencing guidelines without providing contemporaneous written reasons for a departure. Robinson v. State, 571 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1990). Here, the trial court failed to provide written reasons for the departure sentence. Accordingly, the departure sentence cannot stand. VII. CONCLUSION I,along with two juries, do not believe that this child-victim consented to what th…
-
Limback v. State, 590 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…the court again departed and imposed the same sentence as before, but provided written reasons. However, our supreme court has decreed that such cannot be done. On remand, there is no possibility of departure from the guidelines. Robinson v. State, 571 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1990). REVERSED. ANSTEAD, J., and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Robinson v. State, 541 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Isaacs Jerome Bradley, 541 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Robinson v. State, 557 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Junior McPHERSON v. State, 566 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1990)
- Ferguson v. State, 566 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1990)