STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES BOWLAND, 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 state appealed a downward departure sentence imposed on Bowland for sexual abuse offenses, challenging the trial court's acceptance of a plea agreement over the state's objection and the imposition of a suspended sentence without written reasons for departure from sentencing guidelines.
The trial court erred in both accepting the plea agreement over the state's objection and in imposing a downward departure sentence without written reasons. The DeMarco case does not control when the state is not party to the sentencing agreement, and written reasons are required for downward departures regardless of whether the departure takes the form of community control rather than a prison term.
[1] An order of probation constitutes a "sentence" for purposes of sentencing guidelines when it represents a departure from the recommended guideline sentence.
[2] A trial court imposing a sentence outside of the sentencing guidelines, including an order of probation, must provide a written statement delineating the reasons for the…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Any sentence outside the permitted guideline range must be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for the departure.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for written reasons when departing from sentencing guidelines
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBowland was charged with three counts of sexual activity by a person in familial or custodial authority and one count of lewd, lascivious or indecent …
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
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
The state challenges the downward departure sentence imposed on the appellee, James Bowland. The trial court erred in imposing a downward departure sentence without written reasons. The trial court also erred in accepting the plea agreement over the state’s objection. We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
Appellee was charged by amended information with three counts of sexual activity by a person in familial or custodial authority in violation of section 794.041, Florida Statutes (1989), and one count of lewd, lascivious or indecent assault or act upon a child in violation of section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1989). Over the state’s objection, the trial court accepted a plea agreement pursuant to which appellee pleaded nolo contendere and was sentenced to a suspended fifteen-year sentence, concurrent, on all four counts. Appellee was then placed on community control for two years to be followed by thirteen years’ probation. No guidelines scoresheet was prepared; however, the state alleged that it had information that appellee was in the nine to twelve-year recommended range and seven to seventeen-year permitted, range. Our calculation of appellee’s points for the instant offenses agrees with the state’s sentence range calculation.
On appeal, the state contends that the trial court’s sentence fell outside of the permitted range and was not accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for departure as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d. 11. The state also argues that State v. DeMarco, 495 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) is not controlling because the state was not a party to the sentencing agreement. Appel-lee counters that the DeMarco case is controlling, and that the trial court sentenced him within the permissive range of sentence, suspended the sentence and entered another legal sentence. Appellee also notes that the record contained reasons for the suspension of his sentence which included no prior record and the fact that he is the sole support of his family.
“Any sentence outside the permitted guideline range must be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for the departure.” Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 d. 11. The committee note to rule 3.701(d)(13) states that community control is a viable alternative for any state prison sentence less than twenty-four months without requiring a reason for departure. We conclude that the trial court’s sentence in the instant case constituted a downward departure.
As noted in State v. Malone, 489 So. 2d 213, 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), it would be anomalous and not in furtherance of the sentencing guideline policies of sentencing uniformity to require that the trial court set forth written reasons for a slight departure in the form of some lesser prison term, but is exempt from this requirement where the departure is substantial but is in the form of community control and probation. We must conclude that it was error for the trial court to impose a downward departure sentence on appellee without written reasons. Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990).
We agree with the state that De-Marco is not controlling because the state was not a party to the instant sentencing agreement. It was error for the trial court to accept the agreement over the state’s objection. Until the trial judge formally accepts the plea offer or negotiation, it may be withdrawn by either party without any necessary justification. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(f).
Because of the above, this case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings wherein the defendant must be allowed an opportunity to withdraw his plea. If the defendant does not withdraw his plea, then the lower court will resentence him with no possibility of departure from the guidelines.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Brannum, 876 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…a valid reason to depart from the guidelines, the downward departure in this case cannot be upheld on this basis because the State did not join in the plea agreement.”) (citing State v. Laperreri, 710 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. Bowland, 604 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). Because the departure sentence must be reversed and this case remanded for resentencing, Brannum should not be allowed the option of withdrawing his plea. See State v. Norris, 724 So. 2d 630, 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(“[I]n this c…
-
State v. Hewitt, 702 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ing an independent deal with the defense.” In support thereof it cites State v. Tiedge, 670 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. Parisi, 660 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); State v. Moore, 630 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); and State v. Bowland, 604 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We do not agree. Neither Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c), nor section 924.07, Florida Statutes (1995), authorizes the state to appeal such an issue. We have no quarrel with the state’s contention that the above eases…
-
State v. Sawyer, 753 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…in is a valid reason to depart from the guidelines, the downward departure in this case cannot be upheld on this basis because the State did not join in the plea agreement. See State v. Laperreri, 710 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. Bowland, 604 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). On remand, appellant should therefore be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea. See State v. Cohen, 667 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Reversed and remanded. PARKER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- State v. Roscoe Malone, III, 489 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- State v. DeMARCO, 495 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)