JAMES C. OWENS, 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 two prior decisions regarding sentencing procedures. The Court held that when an appellate court reverses a departure sentence due to lack of contemporaneous written reasons, the trial court must be remanded for resentencing with no possibility of departing from sentencing guidelines, not merely for issuance of written reasons to support the original departure sentence.
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. The trial court cannot reimpose a departure sentence based on reasons issued after the sentencing hearing, even if those reasons are provided on remand.
[1] A trial court must provide 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 a depar…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“trial courts must produce contemporaneous written reasons when they depart from the guidelines”
Establishes the holding in Ree v. State requiring contemporaneous written reasons for sentencing departures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames C. Owens was convicted of aggravated battery and received a departure sentence from the trial court. The trial court did not issue its written o…
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 Prospective Application Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
HARDING, Justice.
We have for review Owens v. State, 563 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), based upon conflict with Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990), and Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990), modified, State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1991). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
James C. Owens (Owens) was convicted of aggravated battery. The trial court imposed a departure sentence, but did not issue its written order until a month after the sentencing hearing. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, but reversed the sentence and remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with Ree. Owens, 563 So. 2d at 180. The district court determined that the trial court could comply with Ree “by issuing its written reasons for departure at the hearing on remand at which sentence is imposed.” Id. Moreover, the district court determined that Pope did not apply because “at the point of remand valid written reasons for departure” existed. Id. at 181.
In Ree, this Court held that trial courts must produce contemporaneous written reasons when they depart from the guidelines. 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.” Pope, 561 So. 2d at 556. Thus, Owens asserts that the instant opinion conflicts with Pope by “[allowing the trial court on remand to reimpose the departure sentence based on [the] same written reasons” issued one month after the sentencing hearing. Owens, 563 So. 2d at 181.
On rehearing in Ree, this Court stated that Ree would apply prospectively only. Ree, 565 So. 2d at 1331. Such a prospective application would preclude relief for Owens as he was sentenced before Ree became final. However, Owens was a passenger on a railroad train which was derailed in Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1992), when we receded from this position and held that both Ree and Pope are applicable to all cases not yet final at the time mandate issued after rehearing in Ree or at the time Pope was decided. 598 So. 2d at 1066. Thus, both Ree and Pope are applicable to Owens’ case. The district court properly determined that Ree requires Owens’ sentence be reversed and the case be remanded for resentencing. However, under Pope when the appellate court reversed Owens’ departure sentence because there were no written reasons, the court was then required to remand “for resentencing with no possibility of departure from the guidelines.” Pope, 561 So. 2d at 556.
Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Donaldson v. State, 722 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1998)…e concedes, that Donaldson must be resentenced within the guidelines for his noncapital convictions because the trial court failed to enter contemporaneously with sentencing any written findings for the guideline departure sentences. Owens v. State, 598 So. 2d 64 (Fla.1992). I dissent from that portion of the majority’s decision that holds that these murders were not heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC). The majority correctly acknowledges that execution-style murders resulting in instantaneous or near instan…1 / 2
-
Gibson v. State, 661 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1995)…a written order justifying his departure from the sentencing guidelines in sentencing Gibson to life on his burglary conviction. The trial court’s error requires that we remand with directions for resentencing within the guidelines. Owens v. State, 598 So. 2d 64 (Fla.1992). [*294] Accordingly, we affirm Gibson’s convictions but vacate his sentences and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. WELLS, J.,…
-
Laines v. State, 662 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…battery, in turn, requires proof of an element that the defendant either (a) intentionally caused great bodily haim, permanent disability or disfigurement, or (b) used a deadly weapon, which second-degree murder does not require. . Owens v. State, 598 So. 2d 64-65 (Fla.1992) (citing Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554, 556 (Fla.1990)); Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990), modified by State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1991), and receded from on other grounds by, Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1992).…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- REE v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1990)
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1991)
- Owens v. State, 563 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)