RANDY B. BROWN, 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.
When an appellate court reverses a departure sentence for lack of written reasons, it must remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
The trial court imposed a sentence above the sentencing guidelines without providing written reasons. The appellate court remanded for resentencing, r…
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 Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review Brown v. State, 560 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), because of its conflict with Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.
The trial court imposed a sentence above the range of the sentencing guidelines without providing written reasons for the departure. Because of this, the court below remanded for resentencing and referred to its prior decision in Padgett v. State, 534 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In Padgett, the court under similar circumstances remanded with directions to the trial court to provide written reasons supporting the departure sentence.
In Pope, this Court held that when an appellate court reverses a departure sentence because no reasons have been given, it must remand for resentencing within the guidelines. Thus, the practice approved in Padgett of resentencing outside the guidelines so long as written reasons are then provided is no longer permitted.
We quash the decision below and disapprove of Padgett to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion. We remand with directions that Brown be resentenced within the range of the sentencing guidelines.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holt v. State, 82 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ence imposed at resentencing for count 2 exceeds the 1992 guideline. As the trial court gave no reasons for an upward departure sentence, on remand for further resentencing the trial court must impose a sentence within the guideline. Brown v. State, 593 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1992); Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). We therefore reverse this case for re-sentencing on counts 1 and 2 in conformity with this opinion. TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Smith v. State, 657 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…it clear that where the trial court at the original sentencing fails to provide written reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, a remand from the district court prohibits a departure when the defendant is resen-tenced. Brown v. State, 593 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992); Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990); Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987). The state argues that the holdings in these cases should be applied prospectively only and that Smith’s departure sentence was a legal sentence bec…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Padgett v. State, 534 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Noda v. State, 534 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Brown v. State, 560 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)