DANIEL L. GIRARD, 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.
The court affirmed the DUI manslaughter conviction but vacated the sentence because the trial court imposed a departure sentence without providing contemporaneous written reasons.
A trial court must provide contemporaneous written reasons when sentencing outside the guidelines, and failure to do so requires vacation and resentencing.
[1] A trial court must provide contemporaneous written reasons when imposing a sentence outside the sentencing guidelines, and failure to do so requires vacation and resenten…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of driving under the influence causing death in violation of Florida Statutes section 316.193. The trial court imposed a sente…
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 Dui Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction for driving under the influence which caused the death of a human being (DUI manslaughter) in violation of section 316.193, of the Florida Statutes (1987).
However, appellant contends, and the state properly concedes, that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant outside the guidelines without providing contemporaneous written reasons justifying departure. Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. Robinson v. State, 520 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1988); Edwards v. State, 570 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Appellant committed the instant offense prior to July 1, 1988, the effective date of the amendment to Rule 3.988 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Pro cedure establishing the broader permitted sentencing ranges. Ch. 88-131, § 1, Laws of Fla. The trial court apparently imposed sentence in this case on the mistaken belief that the permitted range was applicable. Because the record does not indicate that the trial court realized that it was imposing a departure sentence, on remand the trial court is permitted to consider whether departure is appropriate and, if so, to set forth valid reasons for departure. State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1989).
Judgment AFFIRMED; sentence REVERSED; and cause REMANDED.
PETERSON, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Betancourt, 552 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1989)
- Robinson v. State, 520 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1988)
- Morman v. State, 570 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Buster L. Terry v. State, 570 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)