THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT WHIPPLE, 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.
Herbert Whipple was convicted of purchasing cocaine within 1000 feet of a school and sentenced to two days in jail, far below the guideline range of 5.5 to 12 years. The appellate court vacated the sentence because the trial judge failed to provide contemporaneous written reasons for the substantial downward departure from sentencing guidelines, and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines.
The trial court's sentencing departure was invalid because it lacked contemporaneous written reasons as required by Pope v. State of Florida. The case is remanded for resentencing within the guidelines with no possibility of departure. If the defendant's plea was contingent on receiving a sentence of two days, he must be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. The court also certifies to the Florida Supreme Court the question of Pope's retroactive application.
[1] A trial court must provide contemporaneous written reasons for a downward departure from sentencing guidelines.
[2] A defendant must be afforded an opportunity to withdraw a plea if the plea was entered in reliance on a specific sentencing agreement that is later invalidated.
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“Because the trial court failed to provide contemporaneous written reasons for the downward departure from the sentencing guidelines, this cause is remanded for imposition of a sentence within the guidelines with no possibility of departure from the guidelines.”
Establishes the core holding that written reasons contemporaneous with sentencing are mandatory for departures from guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhipple entered a no-contest plea to purchasing cocaine within 1000 feet of an elementary school. The sentencing guidelines recommended 7 to 9 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 Opportunity To Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Herbert Whipple, the defendant, was convicted of purchasing cocaine within 1000 feet of an elementary school. The recom mended sentencing guideline range was seven to nine years in prison, with a permitted range of five and one-half to twelve years. The defendant entered a plea of “no contest.” However, it is unclear from the record whether the defendant’s plea was entered pursuant to any plea agreement with the trial court.
The trial judge sentenced the defendant to two days in the Dade County Jail and gave him credit for time served. As support for the departure, the trial judge orally stated that the defendant has a drug problem which caused him to be in the situation in which he found himself. The trial judge also expressed the view that the police set up the reverse sting operation in which defendant was ensnared in order to make a third degree felony into a first degree felony. However, the trial judge did not contemporaneously set forth written reasons for the deviation from the guideline sentence.
Because the trial court failed to provide contemporaneous written reasons for the downward departure from the sentencing guidelines, this cause is remanded for imposition of a sentence within the guidelines with no possibility of departure from the guidelines. See Pope v. State of Florida, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). Upon remand, the trial court is instructed to determine whether the defendant entered his plea of “no contest” in reliance upon a plea agreement that the defendant would receive a sentence of only two days in the county jail. If this is the case, the defendant must be afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.
We recognize that in the instant case, as in the case of State v. Smith, 592 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the trial judge sentenced the defendant prior to the issuance of the Pope decision, which raises the issue of Pope’s retroactive application. In accord with this court’s decision in Smith, we apply Pope retroactively and certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance:
SHOULD POPE V. STATE BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO SENTENCES IMPOSED PRIOR TO APRIL 26, 1990?
We vacate the current sentence and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whipple v. State, 596 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1992)…PER CURIAM. We have for review State v. Whipple, 592 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), in which the Third District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance: SHOULD POPE V. STATE [561 So. 2d 554] BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO SENTENCES IMPOSED PRIOR TO APRIL 26, 1990? We ac…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Rhoda Smith, 592 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)