MARLON HALL, 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.
Marlon Hall, a juvenile charged as an adult, appeals his convictions for burglary with assault and three counts of burglary, as well as his sentencing. The court affirmed his convictions and adult sentencing but reversed the guidelines departure sentence due to the trial court's failure to provide contemporaneous written reasons for the departure, and remanded for resentencing within the recommended guidelines range.
The court affirmed Hall's convictions and adult sentencing. However, it reversed the guidelines departure sentence because the trial court failed to provide contemporaneous written reasons for the departure as required by Ree v. State, and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. The court affirmed the victim injury scoring as supported by evidence in the record. The court found the departure reasons legally insufficient but did not need to reach that issue given the remand.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by sentencing a defendant outside of the guidelines recommendation without providing contemporaneous written reasons for the depart…
[2] A defendant does not waive the right to contemporaneous written reasons for a sentencing departure by failing to object to the court's stated intention to file them later…
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“it is reversible error for a trial court to sentence a defendant outside of the guidelines recommendation without providing contemporaneous written reasons for that departure”
Establishes the legal standard from Ree v. State that contemporaneous written reasons for sentencing departures are mandatory, not waivable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall, a juvenile charged as an adult, was convicted of burglary with assault and three counts of burglary. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a se…
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 Burglary With Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The appellant, a juvenile, charged by information as an adult, challenges his convictions and departure sentences for burglary with an assault and three counts of burglary. We affirm his convictions in all respects. We also affirm the sentencing of the appellant as an adult. The order of the trial court together with the transcript of the sentencing hearing contains sufficient findings to satisfy the requirements of section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). We reverse the guidelines departure sentence however, and remand for resentencing within the recommended range.
The appellant raises three separate challenges to his guidelines departure sentence. He first contends that since the trial court’s written reasons for departure were filed four days after he was sentenced, his sentence must be reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. Under Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990), it is reversible error for a trial court to sentence a defendant outside of the guidelines recommendation without providing contemporaneous written rea sons for that departure. In this case, the trial court informed the attorneys that it would file its written reasons for departure, to correspond with the reasons given at the sentencing hearing, during the next week.
The state argues that since the appellant did not object when the court outlined the procedure to be followed, the appellant knowingly waived this argument. See Vidal v. State, 300 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
We find no authority for applying such a waiver to the requirements under Ree. We therefore reverse the departure sentence for this reason.
The appellant next claims that the trial court abused its discretion in scoring victim injury as severe or death.
The trial court took testimony from one of the victims, Helen Higgins, as to the extent of the injuries she suffered during the burglary. Ms. Higgins testified that she required stitches on the right side of her head, that medical personnel wanted to suture her knee but she declined, and that her back and neck were injured, requiring her to visit a chiropractor 70 to 100 times during the preceding one and one-half years. Based upon this testimony, the trial court stated, “I’ll make a specific finding that Ms. Higgins’ injury is physically severe .... ” Because there is evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding, we find no abuse of discretion in the scoring of the victim’s injury.
Lastly, the appellant argues that the trial court’s reasons for departing from the guidelines were legally insufficient. Because we are remanding for resentencing within the guidelines, pursuant to Ree v. State, it is not necessary to reach this issue. However, we have in fact considered the reasons and find that none of them are legally sufficient for departure.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, but reverse and remand for resentencing within the sentencing guidelines.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waychoff v. State, 624 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…en legs and two broken arms as a direct result of the senseless beating. We affirm the scoring of victim injury as “severe,” rather than “moderate.” The record indicates that the victims sustained severe facial and head injuries. See Hall v. State, 598 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Additionally, Ms. Wayehoff failed to object at sentencing to such scoring, and any error in this regard is not apparent from the face of the record. See Forehand v. State, 537 So. 2d 103 (Fla.1989). None of the trial court’s rea…
-
Bean v. State, 264 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…eviewed for an abuse of discretion. Poole v. State, 753 So. 2d 698, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). If there is competent substantial evidence to support the findings, the court’s assessment of victim injury points will be upheld. See Hall v. State, 598 So. 2d 230, 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In this case, the parties never addressed the specific issue of the scoring of the injury points at the sentencing hearing. However, in the plea agreement, appellant acknowledged his minimum sentence based upon his…
-
Barry v. State, 626 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ial court’s imposing a departure sentence without providing contemporaneous reasons for departure at the sentencing hearing. See Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1829 (Fla.1990), modified by State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1991); see also Hall v. State, 598 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we affirm his convictions but reverse his sentences and remand for resen-tencing within the guidelines. DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- REE v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1990)
- Vidal v. State, 300 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)